Make me a Roman Legionaire

[sword-dancer]

Re: Also

Hello SHARK

The roman centurions had in this time AFAIK the lorica hamata(chainshirt) and not the lorica segmata as armour.
The scutum was made fom plywood / sperrholz.
And to hold their own in battle formation they need at least the scutum and better the pilum.
And the Germanic tribes didn`t use Twohanded swords, their swords were akin to the spatha(stabbing longsword), sax, or such.
Their main Weapon would be the spear, or Ger.
They very well their battle formations and tactics.
The wedge in which the kin fought together, shieldwall and such

Whodat

Theses small artillery were siege weapons mainly.
Caesar used them on the battlefield but they didn`t became ussuall, mainly I think there use was to limited in an time were the decision was forced in Mellee, .
And the crew would be a miss in the battle line.

Since this seems like a thread that would appreciate it:

Here's an essay question I saw on a Western Civ. test:

Who would win in a battle between a Roman legion and a medieval army?

The professor who wrote it said that only Air Force ROTC undergrads chose that topic and they all said, basically,
"Medieval army, they had better technology."

Anyone care to comment?

follow link

http://netsword.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000219.html

 

[Storm Raven]

Re: Also

The professor who wrote it said that only Air Force ROTC undergrads chose that topic and they all said, basically,
"Medieval army, they had better technology."

Anyone care to comment?

It is probably true. The use of the stirrup changes the complexion of the battlefield dramatically. While the Roman Gladius and Scutum method of fighting is useful for breaking up pike formations, it is not very good against mounted troops. (During the later medieval period, when pike formations became very common, the Spanish began using Roman-like troops to break those formations up, and were very successful at that, but the Spanish were anihiliated whenever they faced cavalry).

 

[Storm Raven]

(Why is Phalanx Fighting misnamed? Because the phalanx is the tight formation used by Greek spearmen, not Roman swordsmen, and the Feat cannot work with a spear. In fact, in D&D, a Spartan Hoplite can't use his 8' spear with his large shield at all.)

Sure he can. Give the Spartan hoplite Monkey Grip: Longspear and you are good to go.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Re: Also

Who would win in a battle between a Roman legion and a medieval army?

The professor who wrote it said that only Air Force ROTC undergrads chose that topic and they all said, basically,
"Medieval army, they had better technology."

Anyone care to comment?

Depends on when in the middle ages you pick your medieval army, and from what region.

Tactically, a well-drilled legion would clean up a peasant horde led by local landholders. But many later knights and military commanders studied Roman tactics, and some of the more martial societies had a good understanding of combined arms tactics that, coupled with improved weaponry, would probably give a standard legion fits.

 

[johnsemlak]

Re: Also

Who would win in a battle between a Roman legion and a medieval army?

The professor who wrote it said that only Air Force ROTC undergrads chose that topic and they all said, basically,
"Medieval army, they had better technology."

Anyone care to comment?

Allong with the advent of Stirrups mentioned above, Medieval horses were bigger and more powerful. In general medieval architechture was superior, medieval fortifications would have been harder to penetrate. Medieval archers (both longbowman and crossbowman) were more significant and lethal).

The whole belief that ancient Rome was superior technologically to the whole medievel period is a myth, largely propogated in renaissance times. The term 'Dark Ages" was coined then and helped embed this myth. It's difficult to say whether the early medievel period was inferior or equal to the Roman period technologically (it certainly was politically inferior), but by around 1100-1200 ad, West European Medievel society was superior to Roman civilization and a wide range of areas:

Architechture (the Gothic cathedrals were superior any Roman construction)

Military: as mentioned above

Education: the university

Agrculture: Mediavel cattle and horses were much bigger than their Roman counterparts, plus a number of improvements in farming


Of course, it would be foolish to discount the VAST cultural acheivements of the Roman Republic/Empire in a virtually every sphere of life. The road network, the politcal infrastructure, legal system, and the incredible disciplne and organization of Roman legions, the most awesome military force of its time. But techological improvements can make a huge difference.

 

[mmadsen]

I do have a question though, wouldn't the traditional Scutum be represented as a body shield instead of a large shield. It portected from the neck to the knees, seems a bit large for just a "large shield".

The scutum wasn't inordinately large, maybe a bit over a meter tall, weighing 5.5 kg to 7.5 kg (based on reconstructions). At around 13 lbs then, it lands between the Large Wooden Shield and the Large Steel Shield (10 lbs and 15 lbs respectively, in D&D).

The real problem, I believe, is that the +2 AC from a Large Shield doesn't properly reflect how useful such a shield is in the real world -- but since Armor and Shield bonuses stack in D&D, they can't both be high. Ideally, we'd like the scutum to offer as much protection as the lorica -- certainly under a rain of arrows and slingstones, right? -- but having each give +5 AC would be way over the top.

I guess the Phalanx Fighting Feat does a decent job of this. Large Shields, particularly en masse, should provide Cover, like smaller Tower Shields.

 

[mmadsen]

Re: Exotic Weapon

Do a bastard sword thing and say you can use them as regular javelins, but if you get the exotic weapon proficiency you can wield it with different stats and know how to use it to deprive an opponent of his shield or weapon.

Perhaps we need this for Game Balance, but I don't think using a pilum to bring down a shield is any different from throwing a pilum at a guy; if he blocks with his shield, the pilum sticks in it and bends along the soft iron haft. That's just what pila do. And, to bring Game Balance back in, each pilum is used up by such an attack.

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

Re: Also

Since this seems like a thread that would appreciate it:

Here's an essay question I saw on a Western Civ. test:

Who would win in a battle between a Roman legion and a medieval army?

The professor who wrote it said that only Air Force ROTC undergrads chose that topic and they all said, basically,
"Medieval army, they had better technology."

Anyone care to comment?

Ask the Somalis or the Vietnamese how decisive technology is. Both these third world, backwater nations successfully resisted the military intervention of the most technologically advanced military on Earth. Tech is cool to have, but if that's all you have then it's not enough, as often as not.

This question seems so broad as to leave no real possibility of a decisive answer. However, here's one reflection though.

Discipline: Without some more specific details, the average Roman legion wins hands down for discipline. This one factor alone can win a phenomenal number of battles. I'd be interested to hear what SHARK has to say about the issue of discipline and esprit de corps.

Allong with the advent of Stirrups mentioned above, Medieval horses were bigger and more powerful. In general medieval architechture was superior, medieval fortifications would have been harder to penetrate. Medieval archers (both longbowman and crossbowman) were more significant and lethal).

Aahh...the myth of the powerful bow vs. the weak sling. A sling can fling a bullet farther than most bows can shoot an arrow and with greater impact. The absence of medieval level archery doesn't mean that the Romans were unfamiliar with missile weapons, nor incapable of devising solutions.

Architechture (the Gothic cathedrals were superior any Roman construction)

I know I'm being pedantic, but can you say "Colleseum"? The fact that many Roman buildings did not last is because they were not built to last, not because the Romans didn't know how to build them to last.

The road network, the politcal infrastructure, legal system, and the incredible disciplne and organization of Roman legions, the most awesome military force of its time.

These cause me to pick the Romans over the Medievalists. On top of which, when the Romans put a huge force into the field (multiple legions) they tended not to suffer from the hugely complex and convoluted systems of personal loyalty which massive fuedal armies experienced. You didn't often get large chunks of the Roman side turning coat and joining the barbarians. Disloyal nobles were a fact of life for a medieval army - a fact which most Roman generals could well be astute enough to exploit.

In the end, technology not withstanding, the Romans get my vote hands down. After all, the Romans beat other, technologically more advanced groups during their climb to the top. (Rome learnt ironworking from conquering the Gallic tribes.)

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Re: Re: Also

Ask the Somalis or the Vietnamese how decisive technology is. Both these third world, backwater nations successfully resisted the military intervention of the most technologically advanced military on Earth. Tech is cool to have, but if that's all you have then it's not enough, as often as not.

Be careful not to confuse the battlefield effect of technology with the political outcomes of war. In the examples you cite, technology WAS dominant -- on the battlefield.

Unfortunately, wars are not won on the battlefield. They may be lost there, but they are won when political will matches strategic aims. The US was simply fighting a different war than either the Somalis or Vietnamese -- neither of which could it win on the battlefield, despite decisive US technological dominance on said battlefield.

I absolutely agree, however, that discipline and training are the core of a fighting force -- ultimately more so than technology.

"Wars may be fought by weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of the men who follow and the man who leads that determines the victory." -- George S. Patton, Jr.

[Inter-service rivalry] Note that the predominant technological answer was from AF students. If any service exemplifies the creed of technology dominance equals victory, despite all evidence to the contrary, it is the USAF. [/Inter-service rivalry]

 

[jester47]

OK, you are a legionare.