Make me a Roman Legionaire

[Olgar Shiverstone]

OK, you are a legionare.

ROFLMAO!

 

[BLACKDIRGE]

OK, you are a legionare.

Cool!

Now make me a millionaire!

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

Re: Re: Re: Also

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.

Your point is well taken, but the fact remains that defeat is defeat, and when pitting Rome against a medieval force it is more than just Knight v Legionnaire. Many Roman generals were master politicians and sought political as well as military solutions to warfare. It doesn't matter who had the best soldiers, only who won or lost - this is a reality of war with which the Romans were intimately familiar.

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]

Great Patton quote. I have heard it said that some enemies of Rome simply quit the field and left after seeing the incredible precision and coordination of the Roman formations. This is a great story for demonstrating the effectiveness of discipline in warfare and battle, IMO.

 

[BLACKDIRGE]

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?

Are any of you familliar with Harry Turtledove? He writes a lot of alternate history which include some confrontations between a roman legion and armies fitting the description of a medieval army. The books are called the Misplaced Legion and are a pretty good read, Mr. Turtledove really knows his stuff.

Anyway the way the battle played out in the books is, if the medeival army has a lot of room to meneuvre they can devastate the roman formations with calvary charges. If the romans can close ranks and fight hand to hand, their large shields and short stabbing sword gave them an advantage over the smaller shields and large slashing swords of their enemies.

I think it was a pretty acurate depiction of what might happen.

Dirge

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

There is a Legionairre core class in AEG's Mercenaries book. Check it out and see if that fits your needs.

 

[daTim]

Getting a little back on topic here. This is my personal take on it.

Lvl 10 Fighter-Roman Centurian

Feats - Ambidexderity, Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus: Gladius, Weapon Specalization: Gladius, Combat Reflexes, Hold the Line, Iron Will, Expertise, Shield Expert and Phalanx Fighting (i think thats the name)

Basicly I chose the gladius/shield bash combo to reflect the way that they would constantly push with their shields to get their enemy off balance, and not allow them to use large weapons in combat, while giving them an advantage. Hold the Line and Combat Reflexes reflect their ability to strike first and take advantage of any enemies weakness especially when holding a charge.
You might could exchange Expertise for Leadership, but for someone to be constantly in combat for so many years and still be alive, i imagine they have a great defence!

For Equipment, MW Gladius, MW Large shield, MW Breastplate, MW Javelines (pilum). Being 10th lvl though I imagine you would buy some magic stuff, not just MW, but I am creating a "realistic" Centurion here

 

[johnsemlak]

Re: Re: Also

Not sure if I wan't to get in to such an academic arguement, but what the hell...

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.

I'll agree the the Romans were phenonomally diciplined, but don't assume so quickly that medieval armies were not so. They had access to roman military manuals; plus medival society was more warlike in general--feudal states were armed to the teeth and people were constantly ready for war.

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.

I agree that those missle weaopns may not be the best example of medieval miliatary superiority, but the cavelry improvements are indisputable. Comparing a Roman horse to a medieval horse was like comparing an average guy to Andre the Giant. Plus the advent of stirrups--it was only after that that cavelry became a dominating miliatary unit; for the Romans cavelry were always auxilery forces.

Plus, the English Longbowmen and the GEnovese Crossbowman would have caused major problems to any Roman force.

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.

I'm well aware of the collesum but the Gothic Cathedrals represent a level of technology the Romans simply didn't have. Go into any Roman temple and you'll notice it's dark and gloomy. Medieval architects took Roman architechture and took it to the next level.

Of course the Romans built many impressive buildings, but I don't think any of them were technologically superior to what was possible in the 1200's. Now, many medieval states may have lacked the mammoth resources of the Roman empire, true.

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.

Well, it's difficult to say to what degree this is comparable, but the Romans did face all kinds of strife and dissention. Look at the civil wars. Plus conquered tribes revolted all the time, and often took allied legions with them. The battle of Teutoberg Forest is an example, and that was at the height of Roman power, and was a tremendous disaster that fundenetally altered the size the the Roman Empire.

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.)

In many ways, you might be right, but I think in this conversation we were imagining what would happened if a Roman and medievel army, of comparable size met each other. And the evidence shows that Roman army simply couldn't have not overcome the technological superiority of any well disciplined army (the armies of Philip of France, Henry the V and Edward I and III were very well disciplined) of the later medieval period. And while Roman military successes seem easy to recount, don't forget the successful retaking of the Holy Land from the Arabs in the 1st Crusade (against the technologically superior Muslims), just as one example.

Of course, as an empire the Romans had resources no Medieval state could match. But that doens't mean that they were more advanced, and the point that I was making is that medieval Europe was more advanced than the Roman empire, at least in a lot of (very fundemental) ways. Modern Russia has vastly more resources than Belgium, but Belgium is way more advanced.

 

[Whodat]

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 sounds to me as though you have done a great deal of research into Medieval culture. Have you spent much time studying the marvels that Romans produced? What information are you using to base your assumption that medieval technology was even compatible, much less superior? You give a few examples of medieval excellence, but when set against the achievements of the mighty Roman Empire, how can you compare the two?
You do not mention the engineering feats that allowed the Romans to construct aqueducts that ran through mountains and spanned valleys for miles to bring fresh water into a city. You also do not mention the fact that surgery was more advanced in ancient Rome than at any time in Europe prior to the Napoleonic era.

The Romans wouldn’t even consider allowing a city to be built without a working sewer system. You did not mention that Paris didn’t have a functioning sewer until the 1850’s, or the cholera outbreak in London because its citizens were drinking river water that had been contaminated by sewage.

Barbegal. In southern Gaul (France), the Romans constructed a factory which produced 28 tons of grain – per day! And by all accounts Barbegal was considered be a local factory, not some epic exporter.

The tremendous Gothic cathedrals of the later Renaissance may be impressive to look at, but when you consider that they often took over a hundred years to construct, while the Romans could place a magnificent bathhouse in about ten years. I believe the Coliseum took only about five.

In general medieval architechture was superior, medieval fortifications would have been harder to penetrate.

Medieval fortifications? Ha! Ask the survivors of Masada about how Romans feel about “impenetrable” fortifications. Oh, wait. There were no survivors at Masada.

 

[mmadsen]

Re: Exotic Weapon

Might also consider a special feat for 'crowding' your opponent with your shield in close combat. An important part of Roman close fighting was limiting their opponents use of larger weapons by pressing them with their shields and/or bashing them with the boss. Make it something like a limited grapple, where the legionarre would make an opposed check alongside an attack and whammo they would both be limited to small weapons.

I like what you're getting at, Dr. Strangemonkey. Maybe it could just be a tweak to how Bull Rush works? If you've been successfully Bull Rushed, you're penalized as if Grappling until you make space?

 

[Tyler Do'Urden]

Based off of the suggestions in this thread, I built an Imperian Legionaire for my al-Khemi campaign:

Imperian Centurion, Impirian (Human) Fgt6/Wan4: CR 10; Medium-Size Humanoid; HD 4d8+6d10+30; hp 86; Init +2 (+2 Dex); Spd 20 ft; AC 22 (+8 Lorica Segmenta +2, +1 Dex, +3 Large Mithril Shield +1); Atk +13/+8 melee (1d6+5, crit 18-20, Short Sword +1), +12/+7 melee or +12 ranged (1d4+3, crit 19-20, Dagger +1); SA Evasion, Tradesman, Uncanny Dodge (Dex Bonus to AC), Ward of the Albatross; AL LN; Fort +12, Ref +9, Will +7; Str 15, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 15, Wis 12, Cha 13
Skills: Climb +9, Craft (Carpentry) +9, Craft (Stonemasonry) +9, Diplomacy +8, Gather Information +8, Intimidate +8, Jump +9, Knowledge (Engineering) +9, Knowledge (History) +7, Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) +7, Knowledge (Streetwise) +7, Knowledge (War) +10, Listen +8, Profession (Carpenter) +9, Profession (Stonemason) +9, Ride +9, Sense Motive +8, Spot +8, Swim +9, Wilderness Lore +8
Feats: Endurance, Expert Tactician, Great Fortitude, Improved Critical (Short Sword), Iron Will, Leadership, Power Attack, Run, Weapon Focus (Short Sword), Weapon Specialization (Short Sword)
Equipment: Lorica Segmenta +2, Dagger +1, Mithril Large Shield +1, Short Sword +1, Helm of Comprehending Languages and Reading Magic, Cloak of Resistance +1, Wooden Rod, Hobnail Sandals, Harness, Belt, Small Pouch, Waterskin, Potion of Heroism, Potion of Bull’s Strength, 2 Potions of Cure Light Wounds