There are way too many factors, I mean if you say "100 legionaries vs. 100 medieval cavalry" the question is way too simple and unbalanced. There are all sorts of things to take into account; relative expense (a medieval knight costs a lot more than a Roman ranker, they wouldn't be able to field equal numbers of them), tactics, strategy, fighting style, terrain, auxiliary companies and on and on.
But we can debate a few specific points for fun. For one thing, the Roman preference for light armour was a conscious choice, the classical period did have heavy armour (Parthian cataphracts were essentially early versions of the medieval knight, they armoured their horses and everything) but the Romans always chose light infantry (and light to medium cavalry in their auxiliaries) for their mainstay. Heavier armour has its disadvantages as well as its advantages.
And the quality of the individual layers of armour were not very far off, Roman steelwork was very advanced while metallurgy progressed very slowly in the medieval period (a lot of the earlier knowledge was lost for a while there). The main difference is that medieval knights wore chain AND plate.
There's no doubt that certain military technologies progressed a lot, the longbow is a good example. Had it been around in Roman times there's no doubt the Romans would've eagerly incorporated longbowman auxiliaries into their legions. If we're going to compare the two one should perhaps look at either the style of combat or the weapons themselves in isolation. I mean, are we debating Roman weapons vs. medieval or Roman military tactics/style vs. medieval?
I'd say the medieval period had a few technological advantages (probably not crushing advantages though), but their over-reliance on cavalry and other (in my opinion) more primitive military thinking meant that these were not used to their full advantage. Give the Romans a few squads of longbowmen auxiliaries and see how well they do.
P.S. "legionnaires" is for members of the French foreign legion, etc (comes from the French version of the word). The correct term for members of Roman legions is "legionary".
{KOW}Spazed said:
You are putting a single type of unit against an entire army. Legionnaires could focus on many different weapons. A hundred legionnaires would have guys with pikes, bows, and maybe even a chariot. The knights would have horses and their chosen weapon.
A chariot would easily beat the horses, unless the knights had some way of attacking the driver while not loosing a weapon. A lance wouldn't work because the driver would just duck and hitting the horse would still end up hurting you.
It's true that the Roman foot-soldiers-with-auxiliaries system was better (in my opinion) than a pure cavalry army, but I should point out that the chariot was obsolete by Roman times, they didn't use them. In fact they thought it was quite a novelty when they found the Gauls still used them, they made firewood out of them.
And they didn't use war elephants either, those things have all the weaknesses of horses times a hundred.
bladesyz said:
I'd like to see roman long bows against Welsh long bows. I don't think the Romans would stand a chance.
You're definitely right that their bows would be outclassed, the Romans didn't even have longbows; their auxiliaries used short bows. They also had slingers, by the way.
There's no doubt bow technology took a big step forward with the longbow.
bladesyz said:
There's also no way roman short swords can pierce plate. They were NOT stronger. Medieval blacksmiths had a greater mastery of their craft than the Roman equivalents.
That's not true, Roman metallurgy was at least up to the standard of medieval (of course it may depend on exactly what kind of technique, where the steel comes from and so on). Noricum steel was a primitive manganese steel, tough stuff indeed. A lot of knowledge of this sort of thing was lost in the Dark Ages. I think that on this score the armies would be about equally matched.
bladesyz said:
As for battle discipline, that's quite debatable. While legionnaries under Julius Caesar were extremly disciplined, those of the latter Roman periods were pretty poorly trained. Similiarly, knights under the likes of Charlesmagne and Richard Lionheart were also an elite cadre. Crusaders, especially, were driven by religious fervor which gave them an extreme determination and morale.
Definitely true, Roman military might stagnated in the late Empire and ultimately crumbled. Also, leadership was highly variable at all times, the biggest Roman military weakness was a tendency to appoint incompetent generals for political reasons. But then,
good Roman generals were among the best the world has ever seen.
bladesyz said:
Still, even the chainmail is a vast improvement over roman banded mail: it offers better protection against slashing and better mobility.
Erm, Romans had chain too, you know. The officers wore it, although it wasn't just a symbol of rank - I think its usage varied, sometimes they wore
lorica hamata (chain) and sometimes
lorica segmentata (banded). They also had
lorica squamata (scale). Don't underestimate the banded armour either, the Romans seemed to think the two kinds were about equal (since they used them somewhat interchangeably). In fact chain predated banded.
Kaysaar said:
For the knights, I think a good standard of knighthood would be about 1400, and as for Rome, the Reign of Octavian (Augustus) seems to be a decent peak for the height of Rome.
I'd say Caesar's time and the preceding 200 years though, Octavian himself really marked the beginning of the end of Roman military supremacy. He set the borders to stop further expansion and operated through guile rather than might - I think he knew Rome was denuded of the great generals of the previous generation and tried to keep up the impression of military supremacy without having to put its mettle to the test.
Ash Housewares said:
stop saying chainmail, it makes the medievalist in me cry
Pedant.
Well, kettle and pot I suppose.
