SHARK
First Post
Greetings!
Tyler, just excellent!
That is a very good, very well-rounded character that accurately reflects the broad range of useful skills that a Roman Centurion would have, in addition to a ferocious skill in combat! Equipment, feats, and so on, very good!
As for the virtues of the Medieval and the Roman military machine and societies that supported them, well, I would say that the Romans would win, hands down.
Tactically: The Romans were the masters of war. They *wrote the book!* on warfare. The medievalists, well, they may have had access to some moldy book in a monastary somewhere, but most of them were entirely illiterate--even the vaunted nobility. Most of the Romans, on the other hand, were essentially literate, and the officers particularly so, and the commanders were often scholars.
In addition, the Romans displayed far more flexible imagination in deploying their troops, using combined arms, night fighting, rain, weather, everything was carefully and scientifically even--taken into account in order to bring about victory in war. Read Caesar's Legion to get an idea of what Caesar was doing 50 years before Christ, and 1250 years before the nobility of early Europe. In contrast, most medieval commanders were crude, basic, and simple in their deployments and tactics, and generally unimaginative, and also slow to adapt to new circumstances and new tactics.
Caesar would have annihilated the Europeans by a swift pincher attack carried out at night with concurrent deception columns to distract the main force, while ambushes were set, and the European force could be panicked in the dark and fire of an attack, and they would have been annihilated.
The Mongols often used tactics that the Romans were familiar with--and skilled in neutralizing 1000 years before--and yet tens of thousands of European knights blindly blundered into again and again. The European record for tactical flexibility during this era is adequate at best, and no where near the fever pitch of skill that would be needed to defeat a typical Roman Legatus in command of a full Roman army.
The Romans faced Huns, Avars, Scythians, Parthians,--all who were master horsemen, and world-renowned archers. The Parthians even had heavily armoured knights. The Romans defeated them all.
In addition, when determining such a battle, it isn't about equal numbers. The Romans were capable of fielding enormous armies, which dwarfed anything the Medieval Europeans literally--could dream of. Even then, the Romans were highly skilled at defeating two and three times their number of the enemy. Though it would be likely under such a scenario that the Romans would heavily outnumber the Europeans, so the Romans would win even faster.
The Romans were also not without cavalry of their own, and the Romans are the ones that started deploying armoured, mounted cavalry after being inspired by the contributions of the Parthians. The Romans still were capable of defeating them, but they saw a good idea nonetheless!
The Roman Legions also made use of integrated field artillery, which would have shredded groups of foot archers, knights, and crossbowmen alike. The Romans also had units of incredibly skilled Peltasts--well-trained guerrilla warriors skilled in swift running and deadly accurate with a satchel of javelins. Peltast units regularly decimated enemy ranks of foot-archers--like English Longbowmen. Peltasts were only outclassed by skilled mounted archers, which the medieval Europeans did not employ to a significant degree. Thus, these forces and tactics would have made serious inroads at compromising the apparent advantage of English Longbowmen or Italian Crossbowmen.
The Europeans would thus be denied those assets, thus leaving the mounted knights. The Roman formations easily adapted to using longer polearms in such circumstances, and did so when the occasion required it. Thus, you would see the European knights being pinned by units of pikemen, then swarmed with sword-armed legionnaires, all the while being targetted by Roman archers. Thus, the knights die.
Rome wins the battle.
Again, Rome would be likely to win such a struggle because of a complex of different factors, all running together, that the European Medievalists just didn't have.
The Europeans seemed impressive when fighting small numbers of their own kind, or when mowing down ranks of half-armed peasants. They would likely go down in horrible bloody defeat when faced with a precision-drilled, iron-disciplined, well-equipped, highly motivated force, especially like the Romans.
As for cultural achievements, well, the Romans here so far outclass the Europeans I don't know where to begin.
(1) Coloseum--80,000 spectators! These were throughout the empire, not just in Rome.
(2) Sewers--throughout Roman cities
(3) Bathhouses--throughout the Roman Empire, and available to everyone. The Europeans didn't even believe in bathing. It was rediscovered when the Europeans came to the New World, and were astonished to find that the natives "bathed daily". The Romans would have thought Europeans to be dirty barbarians!
(4) Hot/Cold running water
(5) Concrete! This wasn't rediscovered by European craftsmen until the 1800's, I think. Certainly after 1500.
(6) Mass transit of food to feed cities with populations of 500,000 to a million or more. Rome had a population of over 1,000,000--while Alexandria had over 600,000. The Europeans, despite technically more advanced forms of plows and crop rotation, were unable to have populations of these sizes until the 1800's.
(7) Aquaducts, bringing tens of thousands of gallons of fresh water from hundreds of miles away to places needing water.
and on and on. The cultural achievements of the Romans dwarf those of early medieval Europe, from which the Dark Ages were named, because Europe had lost the civilization and achievements of the classical age--of Rome--for over 1000 years. It wasn't really until the later parts of the Middle Ages for many things that the Europeans even began to reclaim the glory that was lost.
Well, I agree with others here as well, but here are some of my thoughts!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Tyler, just excellent!
That is a very good, very well-rounded character that accurately reflects the broad range of useful skills that a Roman Centurion would have, in addition to a ferocious skill in combat! Equipment, feats, and so on, very good!As for the virtues of the Medieval and the Roman military machine and societies that supported them, well, I would say that the Romans would win, hands down.
Tactically: The Romans were the masters of war. They *wrote the book!* on warfare. The medievalists, well, they may have had access to some moldy book in a monastary somewhere, but most of them were entirely illiterate--even the vaunted nobility. Most of the Romans, on the other hand, were essentially literate, and the officers particularly so, and the commanders were often scholars.
In addition, the Romans displayed far more flexible imagination in deploying their troops, using combined arms, night fighting, rain, weather, everything was carefully and scientifically even--taken into account in order to bring about victory in war. Read Caesar's Legion to get an idea of what Caesar was doing 50 years before Christ, and 1250 years before the nobility of early Europe. In contrast, most medieval commanders were crude, basic, and simple in their deployments and tactics, and generally unimaginative, and also slow to adapt to new circumstances and new tactics.
Caesar would have annihilated the Europeans by a swift pincher attack carried out at night with concurrent deception columns to distract the main force, while ambushes were set, and the European force could be panicked in the dark and fire of an attack, and they would have been annihilated.
The Mongols often used tactics that the Romans were familiar with--and skilled in neutralizing 1000 years before--and yet tens of thousands of European knights blindly blundered into again and again. The European record for tactical flexibility during this era is adequate at best, and no where near the fever pitch of skill that would be needed to defeat a typical Roman Legatus in command of a full Roman army.
The Romans faced Huns, Avars, Scythians, Parthians,--all who were master horsemen, and world-renowned archers. The Parthians even had heavily armoured knights. The Romans defeated them all.
In addition, when determining such a battle, it isn't about equal numbers. The Romans were capable of fielding enormous armies, which dwarfed anything the Medieval Europeans literally--could dream of. Even then, the Romans were highly skilled at defeating two and three times their number of the enemy. Though it would be likely under such a scenario that the Romans would heavily outnumber the Europeans, so the Romans would win even faster.
The Romans were also not without cavalry of their own, and the Romans are the ones that started deploying armoured, mounted cavalry after being inspired by the contributions of the Parthians. The Romans still were capable of defeating them, but they saw a good idea nonetheless!
The Roman Legions also made use of integrated field artillery, which would have shredded groups of foot archers, knights, and crossbowmen alike. The Romans also had units of incredibly skilled Peltasts--well-trained guerrilla warriors skilled in swift running and deadly accurate with a satchel of javelins. Peltast units regularly decimated enemy ranks of foot-archers--like English Longbowmen. Peltasts were only outclassed by skilled mounted archers, which the medieval Europeans did not employ to a significant degree. Thus, these forces and tactics would have made serious inroads at compromising the apparent advantage of English Longbowmen or Italian Crossbowmen.
The Europeans would thus be denied those assets, thus leaving the mounted knights. The Roman formations easily adapted to using longer polearms in such circumstances, and did so when the occasion required it. Thus, you would see the European knights being pinned by units of pikemen, then swarmed with sword-armed legionnaires, all the while being targetted by Roman archers. Thus, the knights die.
Rome wins the battle.
Again, Rome would be likely to win such a struggle because of a complex of different factors, all running together, that the European Medievalists just didn't have.
The Europeans seemed impressive when fighting small numbers of their own kind, or when mowing down ranks of half-armed peasants. They would likely go down in horrible bloody defeat when faced with a precision-drilled, iron-disciplined, well-equipped, highly motivated force, especially like the Romans.
As for cultural achievements, well, the Romans here so far outclass the Europeans I don't know where to begin.
(1) Coloseum--80,000 spectators! These were throughout the empire, not just in Rome.
(2) Sewers--throughout Roman cities
(3) Bathhouses--throughout the Roman Empire, and available to everyone. The Europeans didn't even believe in bathing. It was rediscovered when the Europeans came to the New World, and were astonished to find that the natives "bathed daily". The Romans would have thought Europeans to be dirty barbarians!
(4) Hot/Cold running water
(5) Concrete! This wasn't rediscovered by European craftsmen until the 1800's, I think. Certainly after 1500.
(6) Mass transit of food to feed cities with populations of 500,000 to a million or more. Rome had a population of over 1,000,000--while Alexandria had over 600,000. The Europeans, despite technically more advanced forms of plows and crop rotation, were unable to have populations of these sizes until the 1800's.
(7) Aquaducts, bringing tens of thousands of gallons of fresh water from hundreds of miles away to places needing water.
and on and on. The cultural achievements of the Romans dwarf those of early medieval Europe, from which the Dark Ages were named, because Europe had lost the civilization and achievements of the classical age--of Rome--for over 1000 years. It wasn't really until the later parts of the Middle Ages for many things that the Europeans even began to reclaim the glory that was lost.
Well, I agree with others here as well, but here are some of my thoughts!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
