Ancient and ArchaeologyΜύ permalink
Longbow Vs Roman Legions
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 18th April 2007
I am sure this MUST have been done
Surely a walkover for the longbow - roman armour and shields and the static formation of the Legions would not have been able to stop the penetration of the longbow ??
and their lightly armoured auxiliary cavalry would have been sitting ducks
or ??
ST -
Message 2
Posted by Richie (U1238064) ** on Wednesday, 18th April 2007
in a one on one battle possibly so, but a Roman Legion against a medieval army I wouldn't bet against the Romans coming out on top. Roman artillery is always a factor and they also had archers, which while not longbows would still be enough to decimate the longbow units or slow/prevent their most effective use.
Cavalry on cavalry the Romans did not use horse the same way that the Europeans did later on, I am pretty sure that they had a defensive procedure to use against cavalry attacks.
But keeping to the topic yes the longbow would have been massively effective against the armour of the Romans, its more to do with its effective use however I have qualms against -
Message 3
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Thursday, 19th April 2007
What about the testudo formation of a Roman legion? This was primarily a siege formation but under a hail of arrows surely the legion could have adopted it. The legion could then have advanced under the protection of their shields and taken on the medieval army.
As for the bows themselves, what were Roman bows like? Were they composite bows with as good a range as longbows? Many in England seem to think the English/Welsh longbow was the superior bow of its age but there were other type of bow that were just as powerful - Swedish longbows for example, or the composite bows of the horsemen of the Turks, Mongols, and other groups, especially those from the Middle East. So how Roman archers would have fared against English longbows? Don't know at the mo - anyone care to help with that one?
Cavalry? Would I be right in saying that the Romans didn't have stirrups? Would the medieval knights have had more control over their chargers? And at what period of medieval history we talking about? Later periods the knights had much better armour with more coverage which would have been a different kettle of fish for a Roman cavalry unit to deal with compared to earlier medieval knights where chain mail was the order of the day. Again, anyone care to enlighten us...? -
Message 4
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Thursday, 19th April 2007
One of the secrets of Roman success was to imitate & then improve on the tactics of their enemies - so, special auxilia units of longbow and/or ballista batteries would seem the obvious answer.
At the Battle of Formigny (1450) the French defeated English archers by bringing in superior numbers and attacking from 2 different directions, which prevented the English from concentrating their archery. Artillery also played a role.
For a detailed account of the battle see:
-
Message 5
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Thursday, 19th April 2007
Being English, we always hear about Crecy and Agincourt (and Poitiers to a lesser degree) but very few English people have heard of Formigny or Castillon three years later, the two battles in the Hundred Years' War that sealed England's defeat in that conflict and left us with only Calais on the continent's mainland.
Showed that the French could adopt their tactics (eventually!) -
Message 6
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 19th April 2007
stoggler
Indeed - it always amuses me that agincourt and Crecy roll off the tongue but the Battles the French won which effectively finished the war are unknown in England
I visited Agincourt and in the visitors book nearly every person was English lol
Re the testudo - i would have thought that an arrow that could go straight through a shield and through a knights armoured body would go through a roman shield and plate armour ??
re the mongols bows - saw a documentary 2 days ago which mentioned the composite bow - anyone got any comparison between it and the longbow ??
st -
Message 7
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Friday, 20th April 2007
'Roman' bows (actually Middle Eastern in origin) were a composite of wood, horn and sinew and were formidable - effective range of 400 yards, good penetrative power. As far as I'm aware no-one has done a comparison with the medieval English warbow, but Roman bows could certainly easily outrange German longbows (which were self-bows i.e. made of a single piece of wood) which had about half the effective range. The Romans, of course, also had scorpiones (anti-personel torsion bolt-throwers) and manuballistae (torsion-powered 'sniper rifles') which were more powerful than longbows. They also had slingers.
The scutum had decent stopping power and even if the arrow went through, it would still have to contend with the metal armour beneath AND the padded fabric 'subarmalis' under that. It's worth noting that mail over a padded aketon did a good job of stopping an arrow by working as a shock absorber. Cavalry were highly manoeverable; the Romans adopted the Celtic four-horned saddle, which was pretty much as effective as stirrups - the only real advantage that stirrups offered was when horsemen started couching the lance; the Romans used an overarm action, or even threw the lance.
Of course, the reliability of arrows depended on the target standing still - the Romans preferred to close with the enemy as quickly as possible, deliver the shock of the pilum shower, and then go in with the sword. -
Message 8
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 20th April 2007
Hi Anglo - Norman
if the roman bows were effective at 400 yards (? you sure) they outranged the longbow which was effective at 200-300 yards
surely if they were that good they would have been used more often as the initial attack instead of the pilum 30 - 40 yds ? - battles could have won by them, as at Crecy
If parthian composite bows could penetrate legion armour surely a bow that could only be drawn by archers who had trained since youth - and who even had deformed spines through its power - could do the same and more
I started this thread after seeing a documentary about composite bows - the complicated technology was there about 100 AD (or less) - if a longbow was available (a simple piece of wood lol) then the power of the legions could have been smashed
ST -
Message 9
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 21st April 2007
Pretty sure (although, of course, I now can't find the reference to check!). The Romans never seem to have made much of bow until the end of the Empire when Sarmartian-style heavy horse archers came into fashion. Legionaries were trained to use it, but there was, for example, only one unit of archers on the whole of Hadrian's Wall. I suppose it just wasn't part of their military tradition, for all they nicked most of their best stuff from others (the scutum and pilum from the Samnites, mail from the Celts and, of course, bows from the Scythians).
The biggest advantage of the medieval English warbow was not that it was the best bow, but that it was the best that could be produced in large numbers (mostly from imported Italian yew, English yew being far inferior). -
Message 10
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Sunday, 22nd April 2007
βThe biggest advantage of the medieval English warbow was not that it was the best bow, but that it was the best that could be produced in large numbers (mostly from imported Italian yew, English yew being far inferior).β
Thanks Anglo Norman, I had no idea that the yew was imported. I learn something new every day on these boards. Did that apply to the welsh as well, the longbow was used much earlier by them, was it the increase of usage and the larger number needed?
As for the Romans, they used the bow more and more from the 3rd century AD onwards. By the 4th century AD Vegetius says that a quarter of each legion should be archers, the legions were about 1,200 strong at that time. So that makes about 300 archers per legion, plus whole units of archers in the auxiliary and archers in each auxiliary infantry units. The cavalry would have had horse archers and light cavalry with javelins, as well as heavy cavalry.
That makes a lot of bows in any late Imperial Roman army.
Earlier βclassicalβ Imperial Roman armies of the type so loved by Hollywood and re-enactors would have had a lot less archers.
But without being too disparaging, medieval armies were basically armed mobs compared to the professional Roman army.
Medieval English armies tended to line up and shoot arrows and then maybe have a cavalry charge, while the French did not bother with the arrows and got straight on with the cavalry charge, sometimes straight through their own infantry! That is too simplistic and does not apply to all armies of medieval Europe, but compared to the Romans the contrast is enormous.
A Roman army would have out-manoeuvred and countered the longbows with sensible tactics. They would not have just lined up and charged as the French did at Agincourt, Crecy and Poitiers.
Roman shields would have been an effective defence against even the longbows, and once the legions reached the English troops the discipline and training of the Romans would have made the result a formality.
Medieval English armies were tiny compared to Roman armies, but given that each side is of equal strength then I think the Roman professionalism would triumph every time. -
Message 11
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Sunday, 22nd April 2007
As I understand it, Welsh bows often weren't of yew at all - frequently elm. The best yew was Spanish, but one of the Spanish kings (I forget which) ordered all yew trees destroyed to deprive the English of supplies. Italian was the next best thing. You often hear that the yews in English churchyards were to be used for bows, but in fact the wood was so poor that it was illegal to use them.
-
Message 12
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Sunday, 22nd April 2007
englishvote
But without being too disparaging, medieval armies were basically armed mobs compared to the professional Roman army.
Μύ
love this bit - very true
the fighting was to be left to the "chaps" ie the nobility - even in the scottish wars v Bruce when the longbow was there to be used - they werent because the fighting was not to be left to the lower classes
I actually belive that the heavy armoured cavalry could have smashed the legions cohesion - a plated armour cavalryman could not have been stopped by a hand thrown javelin
and i cannot believe that the roman shield would stop a longbow arrow - i have read (Robert Hardy ?? ) that a longbow arrow could pierce 4 inches of solid oak
the legions strength was its dense formation - it couldnt move faster than 5 (?) mph whatever tactics it used - if they closed up with a longbow element it would have had to receive up to 100,000 arrows - if they waited - who knows how many ??
the tribal armies tended to throw themselves on the legions with slashing swords - job done - with the longbow they could have waited
Anglo Norman
The biggest advantage of the medieval English warbow was not that it was the best bow, but that it was the best that could be produced in large numbers (mostly from imported Italian yew, English yew being far inferior).β
Μύ
dont agree - the advantage was NOT the bow (agree about imported yew) but the fact that there were thousands of trained archers in england who had trained for YEARS (no other countries could do this) - everyone else had to use crossbows
st -
Message 13
Posted by pumbar (U1339624) on Monday, 23rd April 2007
The average draw weight of the longbows found on the Mary Rose was 150-160 lbs. Most composite bows don't get any where near that, though I think the Mongols had a few which topped out at around 160 lbs.
So the longbow has much better range and penetration. -
Message 14
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Monday, 23rd April 2007
is it the actual drawing power that gave a bow its actual penetration ??
would the flexibility and "whippiness" (my word lol) of a composite bow give it penetration beyond its drawing power
would the composite bow have needed the years of practice needed by the longbow ?? -
Message 15
Posted by pumbar (U1339624) on Tuesday, 24th April 2007
the arrows are a big factor too, Stalteriisok. An English archer's cloth yard arrow with a bodkin tip had immense penetrative power. The shorter and lighter composite bow arrow wouldn't have the same impact.
Using a composite bow from a horse, as the nomadic tribes used it, would take a lot of practice. As these tribesmen spent most of their day in the saddle in the course of their daily chores they had a lifetime of practice at it. Using it on foot would've been a lot easier to learn than drawing a longbow which took great upper body strength (as shown by the overly developed upper bodies and stretched spines of archer 's skeletons that have been found).
I think the longbow would've easily outranged the composite bow and its penetrative power was much greater. As a result the Romans would've been in serious trouble. That's even before they reached the massed ranks of billmen and men-at-arms with polearms! -
Message 16
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Tuesday, 24th April 2007
The striking power of any missile, whether it is an arrow, javelin or bullet is a combination of its weight and velocity. I seem to remember it is Β½ weight (mass) times speed (velocity) squared.
If you know the weight of the arrow, long bow arrows were heavier than composite bow arrows, and the draw strength of the bow then you can work out the kinetic energy at impact.
I would say that even though the long bow may well have penetrated a Roman shield the energy left in the arrow would not have done a lot of damage to the man behind the shield.
A bigger problem for the Roman soldier would have been all arrows that missed the shields!
At the battle of Carrhae in 53 BC a Roman army was defeated by a Parthian army made up of mostly horse archers with composite bows and supported by heavy cavalry lancers (Cataphracts).
The Cataphracts could not break the Roman lines with their charge, so the horse archers used the tactic of riding up to the Roman line and firing arrows at point blank range, if the Roman tried charging at the horse archers the lightly equipped horse archers would just ride away.
Enough arrows missed the Roman shield and hit the men, but it took a long while to wear the Romans down and only treachery and thirst finally defeated the Romans.
I doubt the Longbow would cause enough casualties within the Roman ranks to stop them, and once the Roman legionaries reach the archers the shield and swords of the legionaries would have made short work of the lightly equipped archers.
Roman legions deployed in enough depth could stand up to a charge by heavy such as catephract and clibanarii, so there is little doubt that they could also have stood up to medieval knights.
I think the use of stirrups is irrelevant, they make riding easier but it is the saddle that holds the rider in place. But having never ridden a horse I cannot confirm that! -
Message 17
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 24th April 2007
Would the Romans have adopted new tactics to counteract the longbow? They seem to have been pretty pragmatic when a new threat was perceived and a solution was required - although I have to say that "knee-jerk" and "short-sighted" are two phrases that come to mind with some of their reactions!
That's even before they reached the massed ranks of billmen and men-at-arms with polearms!Μύ
How similar was a polearm to the larissa used by the Macedonians/Greeks of the 3rd century that the Romans came into contact with? Did the tactics of "big-stick-with-pointy-end" evolve much in the subsequent thousand years or so? Whatever, I'm fairly certain that small children were told not to run in the house with them...
Cheers,
RF
p.s. What was the, ummm... "rate of fire" for a longbow in comparison to composite bows and crossbows? -
Message 18
Posted by pumbar (U1339624) on Tuesday, 24th April 2007
The Roman scutum would not be any real barrier to a longbow arrow, I think the force of the arrow would still be considerable even after penetrating the shield.
Cataphract charges were ponderous. The size of the horse and the amount of armour it carried meant that there would be hardly any force behind the charge. With the size of a Norman destrier that changed. Anna Comnena mentioned that the Norman cavalry charge would knock down a wall, a bit of an exaggeraation but it showed the difference between the fairly timid charges the Eastern empire had been used to up until then and the Western European charges of the Franks.
You're right about the stirrups. I never saw why people thought you couldn't couch a lance without them. -
Message 19
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 24th April 2007
Longbows could be fired up to a dozen arrows an minute, although it would probably have been six to nine in battle. Now multiply that by a couple of thousand and you have a hell of a lot of arrows being fired by a medieval army in a short space of time. Assuming 2,000 archers (a number chosen with no specific battle in mind but is not an unlikely figure for a medieval force) firing at 6 arrows a minute, that's 60,000 arrows in five minutes... No wonder the French got into trouble at Crecy and Agincourt.
Don't know about composite bows, but having done archery I can't see any difference in rate of firing as the technique is the same between the two bows.
Crossbows however took longer to load and so you could normally only get one or two (or three if the archer was good) in a minute. -
Message 20
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 24th April 2007
Thanks Stoggler,
That volume of arrows is mind-boggling; I guess accuracy isn't that important when you know that so many arrows will be falling in the vicinity of the enemy.
One other question, how many arrows were available to each archer during a battle? A modern day soldier can only physically carry so many rounds of ammunition, and would it have been the same principle for archers? I'm assuming that archers wouldn't have been rushing gung-ho into the enemy frontline firing arrows, but once the original vollies had been fired and the arrows on their persons used up would there have been a cache of arrows behind them or nearby that they could have availed themselves of? In between battles could they be manufactured reasonably easily from local resources? Apologies for my naivety here (and for turning one question into plenty), but military matters aren't my strongest points - "run away and hide" would be most favoured tactic if confronted with an enemy).
Cheers,
RF -
Message 21
Posted by pumbar (U1339624) on Tuesday, 24th April 2007
each archer carried two bundles of 30 in his quiver and usually had another bundle in his belt (around 90 arrows all-in-all) given the rate of fire these wouldn't last long. In most of the major engagements boys were used to ferry arrows from the baggage train up to the archers on the frontline. Pauses in battle were also used to go forward and pick up any arrows that may be recycled.
They were cheap to produce and were in plentiful supply. There are a lot of people with the surname "fletcher"! -
Message 22
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Tuesday, 24th April 2007
Englishvote
if a longbow arrow could penetrate 4 inches of oak
(found it !!!!!! "At the siege of Abergavenny in 1182, Welsh archers, using longbows, pierced an oak door four inches thick with their arrows and William de Braose was hit by a Welsh arrow. This arrow went through his chainmail, into his thigh, through the saddle and penetrated the horse he was riding." )
it could surely rip through a roman shield and armour and flesh - enough to destroy a Legion at long range - and if a legion went forward it would suffer more the nearer it got to the archers ??
Even a testudo wouldnt work if it kept losing its front rank !!
although my op was about the longbows it has developed interestingly to Medieval cavalry
the legions never faced horses of that size, with stirrups ,AND 16ft lances
with a gladii of about 18 inches poking out in front of the shield wall and no archers how could they have stopped the heavy cavalry charge ??
st -
Message 23
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Tuesday, 24th April 2007
With pointy bits - no horse in its right mind is going to charge headlong at at a solid block of men with points jutting out (hence the effectiveness of schiltrons, hedgehogs, infantry squares etc), whatever its rider thinks! That, IIRC, is exactly how the Romans stopped the Cataphracts at Carrhae.
Several centuries ago in this thread someone mentioned Roman cavalry having trouble outmanoeuvering the arrows - or something. Of course, what we've been forgetting is that whilst the archers were busy attempting to make the footsloggers into pincushions, the Roman cavalry would have carried out their usual tactic and sneaked round the side the attack the enemies' vulnerable flanks. -
Message 24
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 25th April 2007
Hi saltiisok,
The Legions would be able to break up a cavalry charge theres Caltrops, the lilly pad things Stimuli? So long as they can manage to pick and prepare the battle field before hand then they should be able to break up any charge. With caltrops that could be just a matter of minutes.
One point no ones touched on is that the Legions are a proffesional army where as most medieval armies arent. If the Legion gets to pick the starting point of the war ie harvest time or the middle of winter then a medieaval state possibly isnt going to be able to muster an army in time to do anything. -
Message 25
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Wednesday, 25th April 2007
Actually the English army of Henry V was pretty professional - there were all paid, if sometimes a bit late.
A late medieval army would have 1000 years of technological developement on the Romans and thus would easily destroy any Roman army of a similar size.
The longbow men had a much better bow and could fire up to 20 arrows a minute, all of which could penetrate Roman armour and shields with ease.
The medeival cavalry was vastly superior to Roman - had stirrups, bigger horses, much better armour for both horses and men.
Medival infantry was of variable quality, at one end you would have dismounted knights and men at arms in heavy armour - again vastly superior to Roman armour - while at the other end you had peasant levees. But potentially medieval infantry would be superior to Roman.
Overall the 1000 years time difference would make it a walk over for the Medeival army. -
Message 26
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Wednesday, 25th April 2007
I'd agree that medieval armies could be pretty professional, with some of the English forces in the Hundred Years War being very professional. The forces that were in Britanny for so long terrorising the French would hardened men from all walks of life. And in general, mounted knights had been taught to fight from a young age, so from that point they were professional. It's the discipline however where things differ - medieval knights did not drill like a Roman or modern army would.
-
Message 27
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 25th April 2007
Hi Colquhoun,
Actually the English army of Henry V was pretty professional - there were all paid, if sometimes a bit late.Μύ
I'd love to hear some of the excuses the soldiers used for their lateness. "I forgot to set the cockerel before I went to bed" and "I had to wait half an hour for a cart and then 3 turned up at the same time" sound like possible contenders...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 28
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Wednesday, 25th April 2007
All this is total conjecture of course but in my opinion a late republican or imperial Roman army would have been vastly superior to a medieval army of the same size.
If anything the intervening 1,000 years had seen a loss of technology, Europe had gone backwards since the fall of the Roman Empire and it was only during the renaissance that Europe would rediscover Roman technology.
Roman commanders could read and write unlike many of the medieval captains, written orders were a waste of time to a medieval commander, and certainly no medieval army had the command structure of the professional Roman army.
Technology only goes so far and a sword is a sword and a shield is a shield, not matter if they are 1,000 years or 10 years apart.
The longbow was no super weapon, it still only fired wooden arrows with little metal points at slow velocity. The crossbow had better penetration and was much easier to use, and the Romans had crossbows as well as composite bows.
Roman infantry of any period was well trained and well led, they had good equipment and a complex logistical backup, whereas medieval armies were ill disciplined mobs incapable of even basic battlefield tactics.
Roman legions were trained to keep in formation and fight as a group, but medieval infantry lost any formation at first contact with the enemy.
Roman cavalry came in many types, light horse archers, light cavalry with shields and javelins, medium cavalry with shields spears and javelins to the heavy cavalry catephract and clibanarii, all of which the roman commanders new how to use to get the best out of them. Unlike the elite knights of medieval armies who were good for one charge straight at the enemy.
Only a few of the medieval cavalry were fully equipped knights, most were servants and less well armed. Roman ballistas would have easily penetrated the heaviest knightβs armour.
Even though the medieval knight had larger horses in theory, only the richest could afford them whereas the Romans had access to plenty of superb horses.
As for the weight of the medieval charge, the Roman legions stood up to charging Persian elephants, cataphracts and suicidal charging scythed chariots. -
Message 29
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Wednesday, 25th April 2007
It wasn't the soldiers who were late but the King was late, sometimes 20 years late, in paying the troops.
-
Message 30
Posted by pumbar (U1339624) on Wednesday, 25th April 2007
In a fight between a bloke wearing lorica segmentata using a scutum, gladius and pilum and a bloke wearing a full panoply of plate armour, bascinet and polearm I know which one I'd bet on...
Every man at arms had a selection of horses in the field, some of the men who went on Henry V's expedition took up to 40. It was a basic requirement for a man at arms to have a destrier. -
Message 31
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 25th April 2007
The Roman writer Vegetius' "Epitoma rei militaris" was popular during this era, so wouldn't the knowledge of Roman tactics have aided the medieval commander? I know it's a bit of a hodge-podge from different Roman eras, but I'd expect it would have still given them some valuable information.
Cheers,
RF -
Message 32
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Wednesday, 25th April 2007
The longbow as used by the English at Crecy, Agincourt et al was a super weapon. It was superior to the medieval crossbow due to its much faster rate of fire and equal if not superior range. True the Romans had primitive crossbows but these were essentially mini ballistas and would have had an even slower rate of fire than medieval crossbows. Remember what happened to the Genoese crossbowmen at Crecy...
The late Romans did have horse archers but these were without stirrups and thus their effectiveness would be significantly inferior to say Mongol horse archers and would be outranged and out shot by the English long bows. During the Crusades crossbowmen were sufficient to keep Arab horsearchers at bay, since longbows are better than crossbows the result would be a foregone conclusion.
Roman cataphracts wouldn't stand a chance against medeival knights - stirrups, horse size and armour quality.
While Roman infantry was disiplined etc a legionary would have difficulty even hurting a knight/man at arms in plate. The gladius or the latter long sword wouldn't penetrate plate armour.
As for artillery the late medival army would have cannon.
Over all the 1000 years technological difference would be insurmountable for the Romans. -
Message 33
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Wednesday, 25th April 2007
Reconstructions of the Celtic four-horned saddle (as used by the Roman Army) have demontrated that stirrups were not necessary for effective cavalry.
True the Romans had primitive crossbows but these were essentially mini ballistas and would have had an even slower rate of fire than medieval crossbowsΜύ
The Romans had the manuballista, which was indeed like a mini ballista, but they also had 'conventional' crossbows, the arcuballista.
While Roman infantry was disiplined etc a legionary would have difficulty even hurting a knight/man at arms in plateΜύ
But how many men in full plate harness would a medieval army field in comparison to the number of legionaries - who would have been equipped with superior armour than their medieval counterparts? Not many. In a one-one-one fight between a knight in full plate, and a legionary, granted the knight would have the upper hand initially; but then the legionary would also have his scutum, and the gladius was an ideal weapon for finding the vulnerable gaps that even the most complete medieval armours had (under the arms etc). -
Message 34
Posted by malacandran (U1813859) on Wednesday, 25th April 2007
Why didn't the Romans discover how to make gunpowder
-
Message 35
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 25th April 2007
AngloNorman
Yes - its correct that horses didnt like attcking pointy bits (who does?) - but thats more applicable to later Naapoleonic conflicts where the cavalry were Hussars (swords) or lancers (8ft lances) who had to actually break the square/line to inflict damage
A medieval Knight had 10ft + of lance poking out in front of him against about 18 inches at most of gladii - the lances hits the legion before they get near the swords
Hi Dan
I agree about the caltrops - a potential match winner - but as you say - in a prepared battlefield - and only when the legion waited to receive the attack
In fact - to counter these i have designed a fully armoured horseshoe
Dont agree about the professional/amateur comparison - during the 100 years war the Enlish army wasnt a Fyrd type of army - but groups of "armed bands" who were fully professional soldiers
Dont forget the 100 years war was a few big battles - but most of it was years and years of British armed bands burning raping and pillaging (not neccesarily in that order lol) and these bands were there for years - this WAS their daytime job lol
Roman cavalry - lightweight and open to Longbow attack
ST -
Message 36
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Thursday, 26th April 2007
Hi ST,
The Romans may have the edge tactically? certainly I'd expect a Roman legion to march further in a day than a medieval army.
If we dump two armys on a flat sunny plain then I think your right the longbow has an edge that would be difficult to counter but given a campaign or a set of circumstances where the Romans get to pick the feild and the type of battle they want to fight then I think the Romans may have the edge.
Probably the only answer is to sit down and war game it. -
Message 37
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Thursday, 26th April 2007
'But how many men in full plate harness would a medieval army field in comparison to the number of legionaries'
The French deployed 20,000 plus in plate armour at Agincourt - (didn't do them any good though of course!) Few late Roman armies exceded 30,000 and many of those would be poorly equipped limites attached to make up the numbers rather than the better equiped commitenses and commitenses' mail armour would be far inferior to plate. -
Message 38
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Thursday, 26th April 2007
You know, the problem with this debate is that there are so many variables - not least what period we are talking about (we seem to have drifted a long way from the original question!
)
Incidentally, I checked - ancient records of maximum ranges for Scythian and Sarmartian bows is over 520m, although accurate range was about 200, effective range somewhere in between. Accuracy isn't of course, necessarily important in battle, as the longbowmen found.
Re: training, horse archers traditionally trained from the age of about six, which was why native auxiliaries in preferance to other soldiers in this case were absolutely crucial to the Roman Army. -
Message 39
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 26th April 2007
the OP seems to be forgetting that the roman empire was still around to use longbows and have longbows used against them.
it was bad luck and cannon that did for the romans, not the bow, as they where using extremely good composite bows by 400 anyway. -
Message 40
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 26th April 2007
Ha - cheat - i meant the western empire and the original legions - ie the heavy infantry that conquered the known world
I baggsy that the Eatern Empire doesnt count - my baggsy was first lol
st -
Message 41
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 26th April 2007
AngloNorman
520 metres for composite bows - unbelievable !!
twice a longbow range - why were these not decisive in wars against the legions ??
ST -
Message 42
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Friday, 27th April 2007
cos the romans had em too, and the romans used a doule layering of chain and lamellar armour that provided relatively decent protection against arrowfire-not to say that no roman fell to a composite bowmans arrow ofcourse, just saying they had some protection.
-
Message 43
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Friday, 27th April 2007
*blows raspberry at stalteriisok*
well i DO count the eastern romans so nier! -
Message 44
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 27th April 2007
This extract from Book VI of Herodian's history might be of interest. It describes a battle during the Persian campaign (231-3) of Alexander Severus. Just before this Herodian blames Alexander's Mum for the defeat, because she told him he couldn't go out to fight because he hadn't tidied his bedroom (or something like that)...
The king attacked it unexpectedly with his entire force and trapped the Romans like fish in a net; firing their arrows from all sides at the encircled soldiers, the Persians massacred the whole army. The outnumbered Romans were unable to stem the attack of the Persian horse; they used their shields to protect those parts of their bodies exposed to the Persian arrows. Content merely to protect themselves they offered no resistance. As a result, all the Romans were driven into one spot, where they made a wall of their shields and fought like an army under siege. Hit and wounded from every side, they held out bravely as long as they could, but in the end all were killed.Μύ
From "The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars AD226-363" (compiled and edited by M H Dudgeon and S N C Lieu) - Page 25.
Cheers,
RF -
Message 45
Posted by malacandran (U1813859) on Friday, 27th April 2007
The Romans spent too much time killing each other.
Isn't that why they died out. -
Message 46
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Friday, 27th April 2007
Hmmm... the Empire collapsed (yes, alright, not until the Middle Ages in the East
) but the inhabitants were still alive and kicking, and their decendants still are today! -
Message 47
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 27th April 2007
marduk
my post - western empire - legions up to 200 only - lol
Rainbowfolly
wow
can u post your source please
- the name of the battle that is
st -
Message 48
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Friday, 27th April 2007
you know that quote sounds disgustingly similar to several several roman/persian battles-cant remember the name of that famous one...had crassus in it...
-
Message 49
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Saturday, 28th April 2007
Carrhae was where Crassus was defeated.
Actually Carrhae was a bit of an aberation, the Romans usually thumped the Parthians - they sacked Susa at least twice. It wasn't until the rise of the Sassanids in the 3rd century that there was a real threat on the Persian frontier. -
Message 50
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Saturday, 28th April 2007
yeah i know that much, just seems the roman defeats are far more famous
they also sacked babylon/ctesiphon on at least 3 occasions too-as well as annexing the majority of babylonia at one time.
and while i agree that the sassinids where indeed the 1st real threat to the romans in the east, i reckon they where also far more vulnnerable, as they fought in a more "western" style, centering on infantry as opposed to parthian cavalry tactics, also, being more centralised than the parthians, and also having their capital at ctesiphon as opposed to hecatolympos as the parthians did means that their powerbase was always in the firing line.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.