Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="johnsemlak" data-source="post: 414693" data-attributes="member: 7233">Re: Re: AlsoNot sure if I wan't to get in to such an academic arguement, but what the hell...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.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'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.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 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.</blockquote>

Verification