The Legion would win because the Centurions had beautiful feathered helmets

@robertoorrego4374

4 жыл бұрын

brilliant.

@UkrainianPaulie

4 жыл бұрын

Dyed Horsehair mostly.

@shirtlessviking9225

4 жыл бұрын

no, because they are INCREDIBILIS

@henrykkeszenowicz4664

4 жыл бұрын

Why do you think that late mediaeval helmets had no feather plumage?

@vincentbarnibosselaar1832

4 жыл бұрын

@@shirtlessviking9225 ETIAM

But can the Romans withstand the Emu Empire?

@goretoriumgaming8600

5 жыл бұрын

I mean the 1932 Australians couldn't even withstand the Emu Empire

@Ahuizotl_Yolotl

5 жыл бұрын

Dude, some Roman boys wouldn't have a chance against the mighty Emu Empire, the greatest empire the world has ever had.

@Ahuizotl_Yolotl

5 жыл бұрын

@RAJU PEDDADA You should check your history books dude, hell, even some goats tried to imitate the Emu Empire and failed catastrophically.

@sgtwarford

5 жыл бұрын

Clarification, the Emu had no "Empire" they had a "Socialist Collectivist Goverment" of noble elder woman. The didn't fight for any Empirer, they fought for the blessed game trails.

@kratosthegodofwar2593

5 жыл бұрын

Emus will win.Even the Australian soldiers with lmgs can't beat them.

Medieval armies are Feudal, and the Roman army was a standing Professional force. Feudal armies were mostly small and varied considerably in quality. The only advantage a Feudal army had in that time was armor.

@sybirak3379

4 жыл бұрын

I disagree, calling a knight, trained for all his life to war, not a proffesional soldier is rather mistake. Also english longbowmen were training for years and were hired not only by english nobles, but by Burgundy and Spain too. Also I doubt that every roman soldier in their army was so proffesional.

@su_morenito_1948

4 жыл бұрын

Sybirak Professional army=volunteer The knights got drafted from the age of 5,not professional

@no-gracias9863

4 жыл бұрын

Spartan win😂😂😂💪

@Presbiter

4 жыл бұрын

​@@su_morenito_1948 wrong, squires were drafted...knighthood then might at one point bestowed by a nobelman, its a titel for life^^

@chai8941

4 жыл бұрын

Sybirak Roman legions we’re trained in absolute discipline. They were entirely professional. Where are you getting that opinion from?

The virgin Agincourt peasant vs the Chad Roman legionary

@polpo8342

4 жыл бұрын

GeeksPlayGaming *pleb

@MrTangolizard

4 жыл бұрын

The agincourt army wasn’t virgin it was made up of troops who were veterans the muster roll shows that and British people trained from children to use the longbow

@EAfirstlast

3 жыл бұрын

I mean, this analysis is wrong, and the english force at agincourt would likely trounce a legion pretty damn badly.

@viktordesinope3359

3 жыл бұрын

Still don’t understand how Rome fell from the inside...

@polpo8342

3 жыл бұрын

Erin Ackerman Not if I learn Latin, travel back in time to Classical Rome and introduce plated armor to the masses. First thing I’m doing when someone invents the time machine.

Correct me if im wrong, but only wealthy knights had full plate armor. A roman army wouldnt be facing swarms if fully armored foes. Most of the medieval soldiers were far less protected and would be vulnerable to roman weapons.

@HolyknightVader999

5 жыл бұрын

But they have crossbows and thick chain mail armor, which can be a big problem for the Romans.

@KuDastardly

5 жыл бұрын

That's also kinda similar to what the Roman military used to be during the Republic era before Marius' reformation.

@undertakernumberone1

5 жыл бұрын

@@KuDastardly far less protected but still as well protected if not better protected than a Roman Legionary. Coat of Plates, Brigandines... Maille... Gambesons

@neoyuls

5 жыл бұрын

That's what I was thinking of, I mean I'm not so well educated in medieval equipment but I was always under the impression that the fully armoured knights were a commanding minority, just the nobles in charge basically, and pretty much the rest were pretty lightly armoured

@beakerthefrog

5 жыл бұрын

@@neoyuls Depends on when and where, but "lightly armored" wouldn't generally be accurate in the Late Middle Ages. The "average" soldier would at a minimum be wearing mail over a gambeson (as stated by undertaker, and that's by no means easy to penetrate using the weapons the typical legionnaire would have been equipped with) and would usually have some other form of better protection.

Aha! Men in skirts versus men in tights!

@ImAwesome1277

5 жыл бұрын

TinnedTommy the best showdown of all times. We just naked celts to show up and then the party begins.

@matthewmuir8884

5 жыл бұрын

Cynical Socratic there's almost no evidence that any Ancient Celtic tribes actually fought naked. The only evidence of it is in Roman accounts, which should be taken with as much salt as they allegedly poured onto Carthage. Plus, for just one counterexample, Pictish stone carvings clearly depict themselves wearing some kind of cloth armour into battle.

@jchen8792

5 жыл бұрын

well, Matthew, you missed the jokes completely....

@matthewmuir8884

5 жыл бұрын

Commander Chen No; I got the jokes. They were pretty funny. I just felt like responding semi-seriously.

@gerbilsmith

5 жыл бұрын

TinnedTommy men in skirts... Well if you mean these guys they probably will win lol greekamericangirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/tsoliades21.jpg

I feel like the Roman's would lose comprehensively in the initial battle, learn from the experience, adapt and ultimately triumph.

@lhirondellecinematographiq6071

2 жыл бұрын

💜

@maldegaar

2 жыл бұрын

@@TessTickles1 absolutely. Then improve on it.

@justnoob8141

2 жыл бұрын

@@TessTickles1 Byzantine, you mean?

@Graymenn

2 жыл бұрын

Don’t you have to win battles to be able to claim something to copy?

@Graymenn

2 жыл бұрын

@@TessTickles1 i mean its pretty hard to copy a weapon design when that weapon keeps killing your guys

Prussian : 150% discipline memes Roman Empire : A M A T E U R

@caualongshanks

3 жыл бұрын

Sparta: A M A T E U R

@EAfirstlast

3 жыл бұрын

@@caualongshanks Spartans were not a particularly disciplined force. Their notoriety is in comparison to the rest of the greeks who were, well, sort of your stereotypical barbarian horde of dudes charging vaguely in the right direction while the spartans developed the secret mastery of... marching to music in basic formation. The romans, macedonians, certainly prussians, and most medieval armies were better disciplined than the spartans. It isn't that the spartans were great, it's that the people they were fighting were very bad.

@caualongshanks

3 жыл бұрын

@@EAfirstlast a joke man do you understand it? R/woooosh. Also i was talking about them training from 7 years old. Romans as i know did not train since they were 7 years old. Also also dont ruin memes and joke its just not cool :(

@avgvstvs7

3 жыл бұрын

@@caualongshanks Spartans are incredibly overrated

@caualongshanks

3 жыл бұрын

@@avgvstvs7 yes they are, the worst of the main polises defeated them lol (thebes) but they are still very good

Largest medieval armies were perhaps 25 thousand strong, at Agincourt french managed to field 21 thousand. I can't recall any instances where larger armies were fielded. Romans consistently fielded armies 2 and 3 times larger than that, due to their superb logistic system. The technological gap is not as big as one might think, considering romans would 2-3 times more numerous than the medieval army. Last point, Roman Empire lasted well into the gunpowder age, or we simply chose to ignore the Eastern half ?

@chai8941

4 жыл бұрын

We’re referring to Imperial legions. Made up of legionaries. That means Marian reform legions, from the 100s BC through Caesar to Augustus to Trajan and to Marcus Aurelius. It was Diocletian who restructured it again to better fit the defensive scheme of the late Roman Empire.

@Italo5killer

4 жыл бұрын

@David Gwin your german is shit btw

@Max-ek3kf

4 жыл бұрын

Haha, no. Western European armies were generally small, yes, but if you take a look at the East and some of the other continents they managed to field HUGE armies. Almost every army was as large as 20k, or even more. And Roman armies were that big because they were an *Empire.* If you look at Republics at any part of Europe such as Venice and Novgorod, they fielded large armies! They even had some form of standing army which was raised in peacetime, contrary to the popular 'no standing armies' myth. The Roman Empire in the medieval age (also known as the Byzantine Empire, which is a modern term) fielded equally large armie, just like the Sassanids, at least while their power was still strong. *Numbers were not even required anymore.* So it is simply untrue that antiquity's armies were larger all the time. And numbers do not win fights either. Much of the Roman technology is outdated by the Late Middle Ages, as shields were hardly used anymore, especially at that size. A polearm would screw it, even levied soldiers used polearms by then. Western Europe had literally been abandoned by the Romans so it is no surprise that they fielded smaller armies, but attempts at making larger and centralized armies were made. The Holy Roman Empire and Charlemagne's Frankish Empire are examples.

@HansPeter-hh5lh

4 жыл бұрын

@David Gwin Landsknechte not landschnekcht, Zweihänder not schweihanders

@kristofantal8801

4 жыл бұрын

Black Army of Hungary, professional mercenary standing army (deployment in 1487, at Schottwien, Lower Austria): 28 000 soldiers: 20 000 infantry (heavy, light, crossbowmen's, archers, hand-gunners, arquebusiers, etc.), 8 000 cavalry (heavy, like men-at-arms, and light, like hussars, etc.), artillery (bombards, light field guns, etc.), war wagons, river fleet, etc...

"Lots of mistakes because of overconfidence". That is a massive understatement about the batltle of agincourt.

@zambatox

5 жыл бұрын

Not really, longbows were pretty average when the French werent sending their genoese crossbowmen forward through a marsh without their pavises (Azincourt). Or letting the crossbows under the rain with hair-made crossbow strings (Crecy). The longbowmen eventually got steamrolled by the French vanguard under La Hire at the battle of Patay. Longbows are way overestimated in the english speaking world, they were not meta changing, which is why most armies continued using the crossbow. However what changed the meta in the 100 Years war is well, the arrival and mastery of black powder. What changed as well was the overpowering of foedal lord centered armies and a move towards professional armies that eventually lead to the centralization of european states.

@zambatox

5 жыл бұрын

Ah yes sorry the Pavises thing was at Crecy, although Genoese crossbowmen did suffer the humidity problem at Azincourt too. What allowed the english to massacre french nobility was the professional army discipline which the nobility lacked and which lead to the tactical blunders that we know. That was the game changer. If longbows had been 100% game changing mainland armies would have adopted them. Most did not. Which means, the time and cost of training simply wasnt worth it. For they were far less efficient than those two battles would lead you to believe. As for French archery, it was definitely not the best. And never did I even suggest that. But it existed, as the Franc-archers proved at the battle of Castillon but that's beyond the point because I never even mentionned French archery. Concerning firearms. It's well known that it's the mastery of canons (as well as heavy cavalery) that won the French the War. And once again, never said "the french did it first" just that they did it better at least at the end. In 1453 in castillon, it's the mastery of cannons and firearms that won the day. And lead to the English losing the war and every single piece of territory they had on the mainland but the fortress of Calais.

@zambatox

5 жыл бұрын

Crafts are not secret things if they are wanted. They do not stay secret long. And the mounted composite bow in Asia spread far and wide and so did the greek phalanx. But how would massive longbow contribute to the fall of the mounted heavily armored knight. While it is unable to do much but to kill a horse if said horse is not armored. That makes little sense if any. As for Henry VI, he was certainly no master tactician, but the very same could be said of the French kings of the beginning of the war. Not to mention the decades of political instability and the arrival of the black death in 1348.

@zambatox

5 жыл бұрын

Yes I do question the efficiency of Longbows against armored target. Especially well heavily armored knights with properly manufactured armor. It's well known that at Agincourt it wasnt the longbows that killed the knights. However they did fuck up the horses. Big time. However it's worth mentionning that the French won big battle applying old cavalery charges, but in order. And eventually wiped the floor with Talbot and his archers, despite his being said to be the best general of the King. As a French, thank god for La Hire and his mastery of the vanguard cavalery charge. He did a lot for us not being english rn.

@zambatox

5 жыл бұрын

We apparently, do not know the same facts. From what I read they couldnt... En effet l'invasion en 1066 était la première incursion Franque sur le territoire anglo-saxon, et quelle incursion. Quand à l'hexagone Anglais ou non, pour le coup, aucun moyen de le savoir. Que se serait il passé si les territoires continentaux de l'Angleterre était restés en sa possession pendant la centralisation de pouvoir de la période moderne. Impossible à deviner. Les anglo-saxons par contre aurait eu du mal à lutter contre les gaulois sachant que l'Anglo-saxon n'apparait qu'au 8e siècle pour désigner les saxons isolés en grande bretagne.

Being 1400 gap they stand amazingly Imagine the Romans at that age, bruh

@ronjayrose9706

4 жыл бұрын

For more advance

@rurushu8094

4 жыл бұрын

Stoneloan Roman orbital drop troops!

@IoanCenturion

4 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately there were very few of them left at the time, being attacked from literally all sides every five seconds.

@indissolubilisociavit6560

4 жыл бұрын

@@IoanCenturion true poor Byzantium

@ALCHESTreAZ

4 жыл бұрын

Oh Also Romans fielded armies of up to 60,000 frequently so i imagine if no them out-manning them they would simply out-number them like the huns themselves did. >>>Lmao

Romans managed to face the attack by elephants and to win the battle ... note that their success against elephants was based mostly on their discipline, military skills of soldiers and commanders, a smart tactics used, their ability to eliminate the elephant attack was not based on some advanced weapon tehnology ... thus I believe they would find a way to face the heavy cavalry

@zjackshot

5 жыл бұрын

If there was a simple way to effectively stop heavy cavalry it would not have been so effective during the medieval ages. Elephants never wore armour fighting the Romans ontop of this it doesn't take much to make an elephant rampage a few javelins or arrows and elephants were known to lose all control. Now you're on about horse's they're generally flighty but have been trained to be disciplined and wore armour to protect from such things, much faster smaller target and more devestating charge. There's a reason why heavy cavalry were always so prevalent up until gunpowder (and to a degree after) however elephants were much less common despite still being around.

@FriendoftheDork

5 жыл бұрын

Even after several hundred years the Romans failed to find an effective counter against heavy cavalry of the east, who had far worse equipment than the late medieval knights. They could win against them now and then, but not consistently, and instead they would adopt the very same type of equipment and tactics.

@El-Silver

5 жыл бұрын

Well there is a difference between elephants are different from horses Keep if mind that this is around Agincourt so .... Plate barding for the horse is not yet common

@HolyknightVader999

5 жыл бұрын

So? Muslims defeated Persian Elephants, and they still had problems with Crusaders and lost Spain to the Christians.

@HolyknightVader999

5 жыл бұрын

@@FriendoftheDork The Romans eventually had to hire Huns to keep the Persian cavalry at bay.

"your father was a wRoMAN!?" "No. A Roman "

@Joe-qw5im

5 жыл бұрын

Uhhh do what sir?

@zakback9937

5 жыл бұрын

THROW HIM TO THE FWOOR AGAIN SIR?

@demonetizedcrusader2292

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, thwow him to the flwoor

@Jakkreu

5 жыл бұрын

And your mother was a hamster!

@draco107

5 жыл бұрын

No, he was A. Roman.

Legion vs Crusaders would be an interesting video. Ave Imperator vs Ave Maria. Or heck, another interesting video would be Romans vs Jommsvikings. Wait, no Jommsvikings vs Nahuatl Jaguar Warriors

@etaaramin9361

5 жыл бұрын

Pathfinder Savant See the Fourth Crusade and Nicaean-Latin wars. They didn't stop being Romans because some dude with a point hat decided he liked the Germans better 😁

@TheEMan621

5 жыл бұрын

Pathfinder Savant the ROMAN EMPIRE vs the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE

@TheEMan621

5 жыл бұрын

MICHAEL GOLD the holy roman empire was a "thing" during the crusades, I was referring to crusaders vs the older roman legion from around the 1st century

Something like this scenario happened when the roman armies went up against Parthia. The Parthian Cataphract is much like a late era medieval knight, and caused them all kinds of hell. There were stories about these armoured horseman shattering roman 'testudo' formations.

@chalcedonycoral1943

4 жыл бұрын

That's actually an interesting piece of information, in relation of "which would win Romans or mounted knights' charge"

@marydominguez6033

3 жыл бұрын

@@chalcedonycoral1943 ACTUALLY the enemy would spam arrows at the Roman soldiers which couldn't penetrate the legion armor but penetrated unprotected limbs causing them to fall! The now injured Roman legions were now vunerable to a heavy Calvary charge! They would repeat this strategy and kill 20,000 legions while only losing 28 catraphats!

@chalcedonycoral1943

3 жыл бұрын

@Mary Dominguez: if seems you are speaking of Battle of Carrhae. Ya, Romans had their asses handled to them there. But I'm more interested in wherever Roman heavy infantry would stand against charge of heavy calvary. What happened near Carrhae was not exactly clean experiment in that regard. Calvary charge only took place after Romans were softened up enough by mounted archers. Organization and supply lines of Partians allowed them to forget about limit of arrows a mounted archer could carry in their quivers to a certain degree - bundles of new arrows were shipped regularly; Romans didn't have any good cards to lay on table in ranged combat between the armies (later, this battle led Roman military to invest in sagittariorums if they were going against Parthians); and if Romans formed testudo, heavy calvary of Parthians passed by to say hi and open them up a bit and left; then mounted archers continued their shots into holes of damaged formation. But in this case heavy calvary was crushing into opponent who was already quite injured, exhausted and demoralized. I'm not sure if that's indicative case...

@marydominguez6033

3 жыл бұрын

@@chalcedonycoral1943 THE MONGOLIAN HUNS COPIED THIS STRATEGY! Chengis Khan!

@marydominguez6033

3 жыл бұрын

@@chalcedonycoral1943 A shield wall can defeat light Calvary but heavy Calvary is a b I t ch to fight as the shield wall will only stop the charge of heavy Calvary and be at a stalemate!

I'd say Marcus Aurelius' legion could handle many obstacles.

@minikkhshaaan5746

4 жыл бұрын

Dan Morgan interesting Match up against the french army both overconfident

@kristofantal8801

4 жыл бұрын

I'd say King Matthias I's professional mercenary standing Black Army (1462-1493) could handle many roman armies! ;) :) Heavy infantry, light infantry, heavy cavalry, light cavalry, archers, crossbowmen, gunners, war wagons, etc.

@alalalala57

4 жыл бұрын

@@kristofantal8801 His army was pretty exceptional during his time. I mean, it was a standing army instead of just levy.

@kristofantal8801

4 жыл бұрын

@@alalalala57 The first standing army in Europe was the "Compagnie d'ordonnance" which was created by Charles VII of France in 1439. Yes, the standing army was not a ordinary thing, but from the mid 15th century, slowly replaced the levies and militias . Other good example was the "condottieri " system in Italy. In the Late Middle Ages, medieval warfare slowly falling, and the professional troops, like the mercenaries were much more important. The medieval armies, especially the late medieval armies used mercenaries as much as possible.

@Max-ek3kf

3 жыл бұрын

@@kristofantal8801 Nope! There were 'standing armies' before then. From the household guards to all-out assembled forces of men, like this one from the Slavic parts of Europe that numbered a thousand and accompanied their lord, can't remember its name but it was in the earlier part of the Middle Ages. A 'standing army' is vague here, remember that.

The one with bigger numbers and better logistics will win all the time. I'd personally put my money on Rome. I have never read about a kingdom taking as many massive losses after losses as Rome at the hands of Hannibal and still be able to make new tactics and field new armies. So here's my bet- maybe the medieval army will win first time, then second, maybe even for third time, but we all know who has the last win.

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-

5 жыл бұрын

+Amitabha Kusari Yeah even if they destroyed 9 armies the Romans would mobilise a 10th and finish what the medieval army started.

@magister.mortran

5 жыл бұрын

Probably true.

@charlottewalnut3118

5 жыл бұрын

Bullet-Tooth Tony cannons

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-

5 жыл бұрын

+Abel 76.2 What about them?

@nickm1242

5 жыл бұрын

For the sake of the argument I think we should treat any battles as being fairly even numbers and on neutral ground. Same thing with the quality of equipment. Lots of times X vs X answers are well this warrior or army would win because they're in a time period or location where they have better steel. No, first of all, it won't make that much of a difference. A simple iron sword can fuck someone up just as easily as a legendary enchanted plus 10 Vorpal sword of Destruction. The determining factors should be on training, tactics, and how they USE the equipment they have and not on who has the better quality gear or is able to throw a lot more guys at their enemy.

Romans would win ultimately because they were a Professional Force with the backing of a large State. They were better trained, disciplined and possessed more sophisticated command and control . Medieval armies were small and inconsistent in quality and generally only had a handful of well trained and experienced men.

@XBebopo

5 жыл бұрын

Also, the Romans would have a *huge* manpower advantage. At Agincourt, the English only had about 6k-9k men, and the French are estimated from anywhere around 12k to 36k. Even if the French had 36k, the Romans could, feasibly, field double that number. Against the English, the Romans would likely outnumber them 4:1, if not by even more. Furthermore, we have to take into consideration that medieval armies relied heavily on mercenaries, and the Romans were fabulously wealthy. They could likely buy some heavy cavalry, crossbowmen, and whatnot, in order to make up for their technological deficiencies. If the Romans had a competent commander, such as Trajan, Pompey, Caesar, Odaenathus, Belisarius, Scipio Africanus etc., at the helm, I'm certain they could pull off a win against any medieval opponent.

@davidtherwhanger6795

5 жыл бұрын

It has been proven in history that even if the Romans had a bad commander in charge, they might still win just because of the training and discipline they had. The Roman legions of the late republic and early empire were arguably the best trained and disciplined army in history. They trained and marched daily just to stay in practice. As for the manpower thing. While the Romans could deploy more troops, in practice they usually did not as they did have a large empire to defend as well. Still a classic legion would have around 5000 men plus irregulars, artillery, and cavalry to support it. Their artillery (particularly the bolt and stone throwers used as anti-personnel weapons) would have been very effective against heavy cavalry (knights). These weapons had range and a legion would have between 30 to 40 of them. A knights charge would be telegraphed by the knights getting into formation and trotting out for a charge. As soon as they were within range, concentrated fire from all over the line of the Romans would pour into the knights line of charge. And some of these weapons would have been mounted on wagons with traversable platforms, allowing fast deployment to a critical area and quick changes in direction of fire as needed. (Yes, the Romans built the first tank).

@davidtherwhanger6795

5 жыл бұрын

The Illuminazi. Exactly. Just look at the Finns vs. the Russians during the Winter War. The Gurkha's against just about anybody anytime. I believe it was Robert Rogers of Rogers' Rangers that said, "I can do more with 100 men, yes even with 10 men, who obey orders than I can with a 1000 that do not."

@rogeriopenna9014

5 жыл бұрын

What? No Gaius Marius?

@kodybelt2086

5 жыл бұрын

@@davidtherwhanger6795 Bad example. The fins lost eventually. Ghurkas would never be able to wage a full scale war considering that they're a special operations force and not conventional infantry. That's like comparing the entirety of the US military to Navy SEALs.

I doubt the french would have underestimated the romans. From what I've heard romans would telegraph their disipline and organization, one because it was so ingrained that they couldn't help but do so, but also I'm sure it intimidated and demoralized the enemy. If romans suddenly stepped through time, if the french didn't know they stepped through time, I doubt they would look on them as primitive or weak.

@7dayspking

4 жыл бұрын

I disagree with him anyone, I'm not sure his description of agincourt is accurate nor that the Romans could pull off what the English did. Apparently the English got hold of the French's battle plans. The English nullified the French Cavalry even before the battle had started and had also countered their battle plan, forcing them to abandon their plan and to dismount. They forced the French to advance. The French apparently charged straight for the English man at arms, not their archers (apparently smaller numbers of Cavalry tried to flank the archers but were ineffective.). They were pelted with arrows as they crossed the several hundred metre gap between them. Apparently as the English archers were situated at the flanks they continued to be pelted with arrows as they were fighting the English man at arms. It's said that the French were too bunched up to allow them to use their weapons effectively. I don't see the Romans executing this same plan or having the same favourable circumstances against that same army. They didn't have longbowmen for a start. They'd never faced French heavy Cavalry with lances, they didn't know French tactics and did not have their plans for the battle. It's unlikely if they did that they would have known how to counter them anyway. They did not have fully armoured man at arms like the English did to hold off dismounted French knights assuming they managed to nullify their tactics and their Cavalry charge forcing them to approach dismounted. The Romans didn't have anything to nullify or deter the Italian crossbowmen. There's no reason the French man at arms would reach Roman lines 'exhausted' like they did at Agincourt even if they used the same tactics. There's no reason they'd bunch up like they did at Agincourt. Assuming the French used identical tactics, it'd just be a battle of two infantry forces and it's hard to argue the Romans had superior infantry to the highly experienced and fully armoured French knights, man at arms and experienced soldiers that were at Agincourt. The Romans would need to win in a very different way than the English did. Not to mention the circumstances surrounding the battle that in this case would not be replicated. How are the Romans getting their pick on where and when they fight?

@patriciusvunkempen102

3 жыл бұрын

medieval warfare was also very much stategic, often armys would not engage but just tease the opponent, basicly with the goal of the opponents armys funds drying up , on this level there would probably a lot of movement warfare. to besieging towns, military defences had changed very much since antiquity even smaller towns had formidable defenses, with trained townmilitias, and artillery placements, and i doubt roman testudo formation would protect much from wallguns(wallbüchsen) and such toys.

@toby1061

3 жыл бұрын

7dayspking And the English had the chad peasant bowmen firing longbows.

Imo the medieval armies are often underestimated in their professionalism. The Burgundian medieval army before the wars against the Swiss was a very highly organized machine. Would they stake up to Romans? Well, we compare two 500-1000 year long periods, the Romans were a citizen army in the beginning, a good professional force at their peak and a ragtag mix pretty indistinguishable from any other contemporary army in the end. So which do we choose? Do the Romans fight the Anglo Saxon Fyrd? They'd be used to that. Fighting a 15th century French army? They'd not be used to that. Against the army of a knightly Order like the Hospitaler or Templar or Teutonic knights? In a similar vein: Republican army. Semi professional but large manpower pools. Imperial army: High professionalism, but the loss of several legions could cause the collapse of an entire theatre for a decade before replacements could be trained and put together. Overall knights, man at arms and medieval infantry in general was used to fight heavily armored opponents so facing the Romans would not be somethin unusual. In actuality the Romans would stack up not so well in equipments to an average heavy infantry guy from the medieval period (if you didn't have the equipment which would be some kind of armor and weapon to fight armored opponents, you weren't used as heavy infantry) In reverse, the cavalry tactics of the Middle Ages had not been around at the times of the Romans. The closest would be Parthian and Sassanid cataphract charges which the Romans did not like at all and weren't superior to. But heavy shock charges... not someting done like that in antiquity

@maddocpax788

5 жыл бұрын

This last bit is the most important here, I'd say. How do the kataphraktoi rate against knights? Factoring in the legions' effectiveness against the former, you can make a guess on the outcome.

@CarlosC697

4 жыл бұрын

mangalores-x_x are you using metatron’s setting? Because like he said, we need to establish the time and which armies would be fighting.

@SuperUniverse

4 жыл бұрын

My bet is on rome, Medieval europe was the back end after the fall of rome. and a lot of them had a terrible government unlike Rome having senators and political figures that literally shaped history. Try letting Julius Ceasar, Pompei Magnus, Octavian, Mark Anthony, Vispasian, Brutus fight any of these kingdoms and they would win every time. ( with the golden age roman imperial army of course)

@chai8941

4 жыл бұрын

The legions time and time again bested the Parthians. They just couldn’t hold on to the territory. Trajan basically wiped them out in his conquest of Mesopotamia. He wanted to push through to India like Alexander the Great, but knew Rome couldn’t hold that much land.

@Max-ek3kf

4 жыл бұрын

@@maddocpax788 Cataphracts were still around in the Middle Ages, so we can assume that they were still terrifying, but with the rise of knights their fearsome reputation against armies from Asia was dwindling. They were very widespread, but knights would most likely surpass them due to having longer lances, arguably better armour, etc.

the virgin agincourt soldiers vs the chad roman imperial soldiers

@valorwarrior7628

5 жыл бұрын

Are no match against the much chad Mongolian Horde, just joking. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

@Evirthewarrior

5 жыл бұрын

Best comment.

@williamcasey7115

5 жыл бұрын

Since when do chads where skirts?

@ivanmartinovic7303

5 жыл бұрын

Sir William those ain't skirts, if you were chad you would have know

@williamcasey7115

5 жыл бұрын

joe martin oh sorry I didnt mean skirts, that long ass tunic is practically a dress. Makes sense considering: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome

Why isn't the Roman siege crossbow or the fact Roman soldiers can build full defensive camps everytime they make camp so if they had even 1hr knowing they'd be attacked by a force like a late medieval forces they could build light defenses to make their forces more effective

@sizel7658

5 жыл бұрын

The medieval soldiers would be able to build trebuchets to bombard the fort given enough time. If they'd have a greater advantage in range they'd have a big advantage. I personally feel the Romans would need to be very aggressive to achieve victory.

@KheptlaxaXonu

5 жыл бұрын

Classy Fett The Romans were much faster at building fortifications.

@bobmartin7068

5 жыл бұрын

Thorolf of Dyflin The Romans would have stomped them.

@bobmartin7068

5 жыл бұрын

Classy Fett The Romans damn sure were aggressive, they conquered the entire Mediterainian area. Africa, and the mid east as far as Baghdad today. And theRoman empire lasted over 1000 years. No one else ever came close.

@smokybear4209

5 жыл бұрын

Bob Martin I dont think they would of stomped them on account of the armor but Im pretty dang sure romans would come out on top because they just simply put have the skills too be flexible in face of whatever comes at them

Title: Late Medieval Army VS Roman Imperial Army Content: 20 minutes of ragging on the French. I love it.

I think it would really depend a lot on the commanders/generals. As a Czech my favourite example are Hussite wars, where Jan Žižka turned mostly peasants with a little bit of training, improvised weapons (and some modern weapons) into a force that could face much larger numbers of crusaders because of the superior tactics and perfect use of the available terrain and tools. Also a huge factor is the morale of the units. The knights were mostly nobility, the Romans were professional soldiers. The Romans were generally more effective fighting in formation imho because of their superior discipline. 1v1 I think medieval soldier would have much higher chance.

@nmac1563

3 жыл бұрын

Jan and his taborites were an example of military genius. Jan is my favorite general.

It seems most of the videos I've seen and articles I've read making this comparison don't take into consideration the composition of the armies. All the legions of the early Empire were made entirely of professional soldiers and were well-equipped by the state. Most medieval armies were at least partially reliant on peasant levies. Armies like those at Agincourt weren't, but raise a different question. Due to their logistical capabilities and a variety of other factors, the average Roman army of the early Empire would absolutley dwarf the average medieval army. Just a little food for thought. I really liked this video and would love to see more like it.

@MarieCrossbow

5 жыл бұрын

Matthew Anstatt the vast majority of medieval armies were made from professional soldiers and mercenaries.

@theghosthero6173

5 жыл бұрын

Well, the weakness of roman is their inability to switch rapidly of tactics against a changing enemies. One time I don't remember what battle, they lost because thier enemy's was alternating between mounted archers and heavy infantry units , and the legions could not face the threat as effectively and ended up losing. So if Roman attack crossbowman and foot soldiers, flank them with mounted crossbowman and handgunners and shock cavalry to defeat them

@EvilTwinn

5 жыл бұрын

In this time period, peasant levies weren't very common, and when they did occur, it was usually to provide porters or pioneers or any other form of basic manual labor as opposed to fighting men. There were of course people called up to fight, but they were not peasants. They were people of some substance who were required by the government to provide armed men as according to their means. Thus, a wealthy man, and I do not mean a noble per se, would be required to provide so many knights and other armed and armored men. However, he might instead pay scutage, which is basically instead of sending men to fulfill his feudal obligations, the vassal sends money, with which the king will hire mercenaries. This was incredibly common by the late middle ages, so much so that one could make an argument that a majority of fighting men were professionals and not merely part time, and certainly not levies.

@SonsOfLorgar

5 жыл бұрын

EvilTwinn yet the medieval army would still be vastly out numbered and outsupplied and in a protracted conflict, the Romans actually had reasobably competent medical staff to deal with injuries and disease while the medieval army didn't.

@EvilTwinn

5 жыл бұрын

I didn't argue about any of that, Lorgar. A highly centralized state drawing on the resources of an entire empire is way more capable of fielding a large army than anything we'd see through the middle ages. I agree with that. What I am arguing against is the continued notion that the armies of the 13th to 16th centuries relied in any substantial way on so called "peasant levies"

Love the vid have been a fan of both channels for awhile

@redpanda7967

5 жыл бұрын

Romeo Cassino why do you ask? I could just go back to his older videos and hear his channel name at the intro

@solomonisms9000

5 жыл бұрын

Romeo Cassino THFE Productions He used to go by THFE Oakley Hi Def in his Total War videos.

Good videos, thanks for the work. My two cents: A skilled Roman general could detect through skirmishes the differences in equipment and tactics. That would enable that, in a first clash, even though I do think they would lose the first combat, the discipline and skill of a fully professional army would allow them to survive the battle, minimize casualties, and even stand their ground until they could retire. The shock of the battle could wear them off a bit, but they would have gained the insight of witnessing the deployment and usage of late Medieval forces, regardless of the country. The core of heavier infantry(mercenaries, dismounted knights and serjeants) would be a formidable foe, and they would know it. But they would also recognize the lightly armed, undisciplined and barely trained militias, levies and lighter infantry making the bulk of the opposing force. They would recognize the danger of the crossbow(after all, they had technology alike), and would plan accordingly. They would recognize too the dangers of longbowmen, and guess that, with crossbowmen and longbowmen, the key is to close in quickly, and to minimize casualties on the way, to keep unit cohesion before the attack. The major shock would come from a full charge from heavy cavalry. The technology associated and the tactic itself would be a surprise and cause for concern. They would guess that stopping it with stakes, as they had done during sieges, was their best chance. If they had the time and the possibility, they would undoubtedly adopt the tech or hire mercenaries that used the tech, while they trained their own heavy cavalry (like they did in Late Imperial times). In short, we would see the changes Late Imperial administration and Byzantine administration did in the next centuries, but condensed in a campaign. The pilum would remain, for use against lighter infantry and missile troops, and the hasta would make a comeback, with Gladius and spathas as backup weapons, with scutums forming shield walls. Lamellar arm protections, and greaves would become more widespread, if not mandatory, and heat treated steel would be adopted for armor. New adaptations of existing tactics would arise, and heavy shock cavalry would be used. Since deployment would be more important than ever, skirmishers, mounted and not, would be required, to allow the commanders to probe the opposing force, harass them(given how weak medieval logistics were), finding a suitable battlefield, and enticing them to it. Centurions would be paramount, training and drilling the new tactics and keeping unit cohesion. Centurions would also mark the difference between a standard medieval army and a Roman army. A small unit officer, experienced, learned, respected and known by its men, unlike the bigger units, which lacked the equivalent for the most part, of most medieval armies. Granted, they weren't mobs, but not until maybe the free companies or the religious orders' armies, such level of training and professionalism was reached again in the West. I see the Roman army evolving into a Middle Byzantine kind of army, but with better heavy cavalry...

@moralhazard8652

4 жыл бұрын

@David Gwin And yet according to wikepidia the romans at the battle of philippi were able to field between 120000 and 200000 soldiers (with at least 30.000 cavalry) while at agincourt there likely were less than 30.000 men overall. Under Augustus the roman army is believed to have even exceeded the 300000 mark.

@L3m0nPlayz

3 ай бұрын

@@moralhazard8652 under constatine-till late roman empire, the roman army had a standing army of 590-700k troops

People tend to forget how very physically strong long bowmen were

@miguelsuarez-solis5027

3 жыл бұрын

@Patrick Brennan great series

@thessop9439

3 жыл бұрын

A warbow would tear in half a roman scutum from 1 BCE with a couple shots

@jonajo9757

3 жыл бұрын

Depends though. Sometimes you'd have common numbers like 90-130lbs, then you got more uncommon to rare weights like 140-180lbs

@miguelsuarez-solis5027

3 жыл бұрын

@@jonajo9757 no dude. War bows were 100lbs minimum and averaged at 150lbs some were up to 200lbs... The reason the English were so known for their longbows is because archery was a passtime and they often started as kids, which is why they were so good at using bigger stronger bows

@linming5610

2 жыл бұрын

Bows with same draw weight exist during ancient times. What made longbow good is their range which is 300meters. But romans would likely counter them with slings.

Invicta is great! Subbed to them not long ago. Actually Metatron, both of you are great!

"The Romans would loot whatever they found to be useful" Romans confirmed to be Orks.

@joaquinandreu8530

5 жыл бұрын

Or Blood Ravens.

@XanderTuron

5 жыл бұрын

Brother, check the Reliquary!

@AmbiguousEntity

5 жыл бұрын

Heresy.

@XanderTuron

5 жыл бұрын

It's only heresy if the Inquisition knows about it.

@SaurusWarriorSotek

5 жыл бұрын

@@XanderTuron we have a little n lier humie

The Romans throwing weapon was ment to stick into shields and make them really difficult to wield right before everyone closed in melee and thus disrupt the enemy shield wall. Also it might not kill the knight but if would probably seriously upset a few horses. The standard of discipline and training across the board on the Roman side would be higher, only the more elite forces like knights would be comparable.

@SuperUniverse

4 жыл бұрын

The discipline of Roman Soldiers : 100% ( ALL SOLDIERS) The discipline of Medieval Soldiers 40% ( 40% trained soldiers, 60% pesants that were trained for 3 weeks only) You can see a winning side with that :)

@patriciusvunkempen102

3 жыл бұрын

that's why usualy you would not charge just head on into heavy infantry also spears were not unknown in the middleages, but this changes again si horsearmor is in play i think it was more common later but i doubt pilum would make a great impact

@TheMogul88

Жыл бұрын

@@SuperUniverse exactly mate. If we are choosing hand picked frontier legionnaires they will massacre any medieval army in a hand to hand combat. European knights lost a lot battles against professional armies like ottomans or mongols.

Phalanx: "am i a joke to you?"

@elbentos7803

4 жыл бұрын

After the first, second and third War of Macedon, roman answer is : "yes, indeed you are !"

@no-gracias9863

4 жыл бұрын

@@elbentos7803 haha yup" don't trust mercenaries to protect your back

@giannisimeridis

4 жыл бұрын

@Windows xD thank you

@davidb3155

4 жыл бұрын

yes, the phalanx is a joke.

@7dayspking

4 жыл бұрын

@Windows xD They didn't to my knowledge have pikes or pike tactics in antiquity comparable to late medieval. They also didn't have gunpowder or reliable, powerful, easy to reload crossbows used by well armoured men.

I think that despite the fact that in many points Roman Army is superior, the advantage for the medieval army is massive. Heavy cavalry charges were such a decisive factor, that they would in most cases (as Metatron said under some conditions Romans could try to nullify this threat with positioning, etc.) just break roman formations and cause panic. Polish winged lancers are the best example of how decisive the heavy/shock cavalry was until late 17th century.

@kennkid9912

5 жыл бұрын

The winged hussars had pistols. At the siege of Vienna they also had cannons.Sobiesli was quite the commander in that battle. He was also 70 years old.

@andrzejfilip4913

5 жыл бұрын

I think I know what you are getting at, but pistols and cannon support was not what made winged hussars so devastating - it was the changes with their lances. Pistols where to be used after the charge when the hussars where retreating to resupply with new lances and renew the charge. Anyway medieval cavalry had no pistols and was equally devastating at its time :). My feeling is also that while fairly praising Roman training and discipline, people are generally underestimating the professionalism of the medieval knights and standing forces (archers, crossbowmen, etc.)

@kennkid9912

5 жыл бұрын

You have to admit that the Turk army was mishandled at Vienna.Cannons and pistols made cavalry charges obsolete.

@houseking9211

5 жыл бұрын

DId yOu JuSt CaLl WiGnEd HusSaRs... *WINGED LANCERS*???!?!?!?!?!?

@houseking9211

5 жыл бұрын

Walter, please tell of the Roman cannons and pistols?

4:48 The Romans had looted a video camera from the Judeans.

@bloodfang6611

5 жыл бұрын

Liquidsback yeah, actually the second temple was a giant movie theater :D

Evidently well researched content, factually correct and well produced, thank you Metatron! Subbed.

That "roman soldier" struggling through the weight of pilum at 8:58 with his office trained hands doesn't look really representative.

@koba2209

4 жыл бұрын

😂😂😂

I'm not so sure medieval armies would be overconfident in an encounter with an imperial roman army. Ancient Rome was the stuff of legends, and at least the military leaders would have studied the battles of antiquity, understood the importance of organization and discipline and been painfully aware that their own forces were nowhere near as organized and disciplined as a Roman legion. Facing an army that your teachers always told you was a pinnacle of military might that the world hasn't seen anything even close since, is a very daunting prospect. But then: A medieval battle commander would have studied Roman tactics and would therefore have an idea what to expect, where an Imperial Roman battle commander would have no clue what to expect from a medieval army. I suspect they would greatly underestimate the threat medieval ranged weapons pose to them. And since the Roman didn't know stirrups, they'd also underestimate the power of medieval cavalry

@OtterSC2

5 жыл бұрын

MrAranton did you watch the video? That's why he said England would probably win but the French army at agincourt was lead by arrogant, competitive and selfish nobles that historically made incredibly stupid strategic decisions. Slamming your heavy cavalry straight into the enemy is not exactly a sophisticated tactic and that's literally all the French were prepared to do at that point in their military history, Romans would probably camp behind mud just like the English did and basically laugh at how useless full plate is when it's cooking you alive and full of mud.

@MrAranton

5 жыл бұрын

You can't just assume that the French would approach a Roman army exactly the way they approached the English at Azincourt. When the French faced the English, the faced what they believed to be a rag-tag band of peasants. Had these French encoutered a Roman army there's no way they would have mistaken them for a rag-tag band of peasants. And when people take their opponent seriously their decisions tend to be a lot smarter than when they're not taking their opponent seriously.

@majungasaurusaaaa

5 жыл бұрын

Well, for having studied ancient military tactics they sure displayed little of having done so.

@MrAranton

5 жыл бұрын

Even the most capable and educated military commanders have to make do with what's at their disposal. Ancient tactics in general and roman tactics in particular relied on well-trained, highly disciplined infantry that medieval commanders simply didn't have. They a mix of highly trained chivalry of varying discipline, well-trained mercenary of varying loyalty and barely trained peasants. A head cavalry charge is mostly a scare-tactic, and usually a quite effective one. A formation of knights in armour on horses charging towards you is a terrifying sight to behold, and it's not unreasonable to expect a line of typical medieval infantry to break up and run before the forces even clash into each other. But seeing a roman army, knowing that those are the most disciplined and professional the world has ever seen up to that point in history just might give a medivial commander pause and cause them to re-think their tactics. Whether they'd be able to actually implement their adaptaded tactic with the personnel they have is a different story; but to assume they wouldn't even try to adapt their tactics to the foe they face?

@VachicorneOld

5 жыл бұрын

Well, late medieval French armies cannot be described only by the battle of Azincourt. They were overconfident in that particular instance, but not all of them.

Keep making these videos it opens my mind and it's unique having two army's from two different timelines.

15:36 "it IS a matter of genitals..."

I feel like the fact that middle aged cavalry was so much more advanced would cause the Romans to lose more than anything else

@TrueFork

4 жыл бұрын

Romans didn't have the medieval stirrup and saddle (nor the destrier horses) that allowed for heavy shock cavalry. They also wouldn't stand a chance against gunpowder and cannon.

@tauempire1793

3 жыл бұрын

@@TrueFork gun powder was fairly rare during this time in Europe so I doubt most medival armies at the time would have cannons in their arsenal

@TrueFork

3 жыл бұрын

@@tauempire1793 The topic is "Late medieval army", gunpowder was not rare in the late middle ages. It was well established by the end of the 14th century. E.g. Joan of Arc was known for her effective use of cannons.

@patriciusvunkempen102

3 жыл бұрын

they could lure away parts of the roman, army and cursh them in a cavalry charge or infantry ambush, also roman army trains could be very long and this made them vulnerable like at teutoburger forrest. so if the romans fail to deploy in formation, they are very bad off

wouldnt the romans generally field more warriors then a medieval armor too? i must research this but it seems like roman armies were massive and medieval armies generally not.

@Altrantis

5 жыл бұрын

Generally, simply because the territory held by medieval kings was smaller. I mean, the WHOLE roman empire (which included all of what is France today) against just the kingdom of France which is half occupied by England hardly seems fair. Imagine if we had a battle between the armies of the Roman Empire against the armies of all the countries that used to be part of the roman empire except in the 1400s, combined. Suddenly the odds don't seem as good for the Romans, don't they.

@mhail7673

5 жыл бұрын

Socio Philosopher No. I think you would need to take the republic at its strongest then drop 1400s France in the middle of their empire. Rome wins. France could last a long time with the heavy cavalry...but against the full might of rome...it could be a hundred year war.

@majungasaurusaaaa

5 жыл бұрын

The ability to muster men and resources is THE reason a faction wins its wars. A quick look at the USA's steel out put and population is enough to conclude that the germans stood no chance in WW2.

@darthplagueis13

5 жыл бұрын

Actually not. A roman legion consisted of 3000 - 6000 warriors and in Agincourt there were between 6000 to 9000 english/welsh and 14000 to 36000 french. Of course, those were exceptionally large armies for the time and if we wanted to be fair we could give the romans two legions to get them to about 10-12k troops. "the one with the larger army" doesn't necessarily win as the english/welsh have proven but I think in this case the romans would probably be outnumbered. We don't really know how well the romans do when vastly outnumbered. According to Caesar they were in the battle of Alesia but later estimates suggest that he was just overstating the gallic numbers considerably because the battle with the ensuing maneuvres wouldn't really make sense unless there were 2 simularily sized armies facing off against each other.

@AW-hg3pc

5 жыл бұрын

aha thanks for the information, looks like i misled myself on this. When i see a roman army in my imagination i always assumed there woul be 6-20k troops in a roman army wen going to war against a major foe. Now that i read the comments i see that i need to rethink this.

Romans fought to conquer. It wasn't a sport to them. It was a fight meant to be won. Late era knights fought for glory, people would literally come out of near by towns to watch them. War was different entirely in medieval times. It was more good sport than serious war. Romans left the sport to the gladiators, and the war to the front line.

@vCLOWNSHOESv

4 жыл бұрын

You're belittling countless deaths in medieval wars.

@MS-gc7rb

4 жыл бұрын

Agree, it seems that medieval warfare emphasized more on glories and equipments whereas the Romans emphasized more on the tactics, and battle formations. The late wins in my opinion simply because its useless to own a superior weapon but not knowing how to use it. French vs. England was the perfect example for this case.

@cbxadt440

4 жыл бұрын

Romans where the first war machine and had some honor, the english and french where all panzies they had to fake their glory because they would loose most of their wars and had no honor for their fellow soldiers who they would abandon in retreat

@kristofantal8801

4 жыл бұрын

You have no idea, what "medieval" warfare looks like...

This is a refreshing take on the THIS VS THAT type of video. Id love a few more comparing romans and medieval. If you could compare specific armies when it comes to outfit it would also be really cool, so the french cavalry of the houndred years war isnt lumped in with the english.

I think you have to be super specific for a question like this. If army size in rome was accurate according to the roman records then simply overwhelming most every medeival army would be a probabibilty.

@Max-ek3kf

4 жыл бұрын

Ancient records are unreliable due to exaggerations. And by the way, *numbers do not win battles.* The medieval army also varies, some were tens of thousands strong and very well-funded. The real advantage of the Romans is that they are an Empire.

@TrueFork

4 жыл бұрын

​@@Max-ek3kf the question "could the force of the entire Roman Empire at it's peak defeat a random medieval kingdom" is not exactly the same as "Roman versus medieval army" though

I've been waiting for you and invicta to discover each other for a while now

An interesting point is that no medieval state could afford the number of soldier recruited during the roman empire. That could be a good advantage for the roman army.

@yulusleonard985

5 жыл бұрын

Medieval states have harvest to care, plague to fend and you can always hire mercenaries. Or medieval states could simply issue crusade to deal with most dangerous threat.

@yulusleonard985

5 жыл бұрын

He means the Romans can play attrition game. But he also forget when the Byzantine suffer plague that rival black death during Justinian era, they have trouble with raising armies. Who win battle determined on who fuckup their own deployment the most. Someone who fuck their deployment will lose even against smaller weaker opponent who deploy properly.

@SuperGman117

5 жыл бұрын

This isn't about a war, it's about a battle.

@MALUM7

5 жыл бұрын

Sigiswulf During a battle the roman army would be surely more numerous.

@SuperGman117

5 жыл бұрын

It's specified that we're talking about a *legion,* not an entire invasion force sanctioned by Trajan to march through a time portal and conquer the Medieval world.

I find your shows extremely interesting and informative I love all your Roman equipment!!!

been away for awhile you are still as good as ever and will keep watching and sharing

I think the Roman Imperial army, from say Trajan's time would be a class above the late medieval army. The regimented discipline of military life, the training, the esprit d' corps or pride in one's unit, the organization, logistics, the equipment. On the whole, the legion would be much better armored as well. I think the only advantage that the medieval soldier has would be that some of the soldiers would be heavily armored, and also their heavy cavalry, which the legion has experience with against the Eastern Empires. I'd give the edge to the legion in any battle honestly.

@bloodypine22

5 жыл бұрын

stuka80 Late-medieval armies were made out of heavily armoured mercenaries and fully armored knights, and even the lower class soliders would have used partial plate and mail.

@bloodypine22

5 жыл бұрын

Also late-medieval armies would have full usage of firearms.

@stuka80

5 жыл бұрын

The imperial Inquisition of course firearms will change the game completely. im talking about pre gunpowder medieval armies say around 1300s. at this era, id say its 50/50. but early or mid era id give the edge to the legions.

@xerty5502

5 жыл бұрын

The imperial Inquisition i'm not so certine that early blavkpowder fire srms would have had any real effect at all right up intill the invention of the plug bayonet early guns were largly ineffective (cannon had there place knocking down fortifications) they were inacurate compared to crossbows and bows and due to that inaccuracy had relitivly short effective ranges. No late middle age firearms are more of an expensive curiously at this point.

@neutronalchemist3241

5 жыл бұрын

The discipline and organization of post Marian Reform Roman Armies were on an entirely different level in respect to what could be seen in medieval, even late medieval, times. In medieval times there was someone whose job was to fight. The Romans already industrialised warfare. Their ability in building fortification and field traps out of nothing was unparalleled. Their literacy level was unparalleled. Middle age armies (and that''s the case of Agincourt) were often led from the front. This way the commander couldn't even see what was happening more than few steps away, let alone react to unforeseen situations. The Roman chain of command was miles ahead anything seen in Europe until the 30 Years war. Every Roman officer was very likely to have read treaties on strategy and tactic (those written by Pyrrhus of Epirus were available and popular in Roman time). The medieval army's commander to be able to read was not a given.

I love the Invicta channel! Glad to hear it endorsed by you :)

@valorwarrior7628

5 жыл бұрын

you should also try Kings and Generals! :)

@shastaganti7555

5 жыл бұрын

Valor Warrior I love them as well! Especially the new series on the Americas, Thanks though :)

Already subscribed to Invicta and love it. On that recommendation itself I'm now subscribed to you :)

new to yuor channel genuinely appreciate it, has me re reading my collage literature happily Xx

Yes! Make this into a series as you said!

About the Pilum, I agree that it might not be affective. But from some research, I came across that the pilum would be used to damage the opponents shield by getting it stuck in the shield, causing them to possibly drop their shield as they could not use it.

@fanta4897

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, but full-plated knight losing a shield against roman would not be such a problem(especially considering that even if knight had shield it was because it gave him protection against anti-armor weapons... which roman doesn't have).

@breandank3026

5 жыл бұрын

Frank Teryngel that's why I agreed with Metatron that a Pilum would not be that effective

@matthewmuir8884

5 жыл бұрын

MacTire Tiogair then the Genoese crossbowmen would be way ahead of them by using a pavice: a giant shield one plants in the ground rather than carrying on one's arm. (I'm replying to your first comment).

@ArkadiBolschek

5 жыл бұрын

MacTire Tiogair That was a very useful feature against the armies of their time. But consider the types of troops involved in the 100 years war: -heavy crossbowman: his shield is a huge pavise firmly planted on the ground, more like a one-man barricade. Pilum would be useless against it. -mounted knight: his armour protects him well enough against javelins, can do without a shield. -heavy infantry: straight up don't use shields, also protected by plate armour. -English longbowman: massive range advantage, if the Romans get close enough to use their pila they can just fall back and let other troops handle them.

With battlefield details in their entirety, one could apply the art of war in order to learn the outcome. I believe it would prove a valuable tool in creating your videos. Great content btw! 👍

Invictus is fantastic! Thank You for the Rec.

Yes make this a series, please!

I think the best way to beat an cavalry heavy army with an infantry army is to dig trenches. Like one small chinese army did against a much bigger rebelling army. Even on flat planes, it will nullify the advantage of an cavalry charge.

@klausernstthalheim9642

5 жыл бұрын

This tactic works very well against horse archers. First the trenches limit the mobility of the cavalry (negating the advances of having a horse....with only several mens it's possible to traverse the trenches without casualities, but for an cavalry unit not so). Second it provides cover and also limiting the attack range of horse archers, while your own archers aren't constricted at all......the most fun fact this chinese commander was sent to die, he was ordered to fight with a small army at a flat planes against a big army of horse archers, heavy cavalry, several good trained units of infantry. It was a certain death, if he refused would be executed, if he fled his family would be executed.....he arrived at the plane and thought "In 2 days the main rebelling army would overrun this place, so i dig trenches" He forced everyone including high ranking officers and himself digging trenches more than 1 and half day everywhere and massacred the main army with his exhausted ragtag troops.....He was promoted and became a very importent general in the 19th century and was later executed as a scapegoat for failing of others.....the same tactic would be used by a roman army....because cavalry and horse archers are not invinvible, even at a place were they have an several advantages, but that depends on the army structure, command and strategies of both sides

@undertakernumberone1

5 жыл бұрын

of course this does not help against the european army brining in... you know... cannons for example. and yes, by the time of Agincourt, cannons had started to be used in battle. At Crecy, quite a while before that, it seems the English had 5 of those things: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribauldequin

@klausernstthalheim9642

5 жыл бұрын

The chinese armies at this point at time were equipped with cannons....but for late medieval armies their cannons could only shot a few time in succession, before they explode. So they used them mainly at a siege or shot them in a very low rate of succession....if the roman got hands of this technology they would improve them in a very short time (by standardization of production and training of cannons.....maybe they would introduce muskets sooner at this point of time)

@undertakernumberone1

5 жыл бұрын

and if we would give the ancient romans an Assault rifle they would turn it into a laser rifle, eh?

@klausernstthalheim9642

5 жыл бұрын

Nope, but the problem of the early firearms, that the production process make them very unreliable....one shoot just fine and the next one explode after the first time use. While use a flintlock or matchlock on a arquebus to turn it in a musket isn't a big step. What the romans got against a typical westeuropean medieval army....their organisation, discipline and economic might (roman are well used of large scale production of standard equipment)

It would be awesome if this was a series! Love your content!

A bit late, but I would certainly like to see more scenarios like this!! That was a great video....it was like the show deadliest warrior except done well and correctly

Very nice video Metatron. Keep it up. I would also like to acknowledge the fact that comparison like this is slightly ridiculous considering the fact, that Rome was present in first half of 15th century. Byzantines believed, in my opinion rightly, that they are in fact Romans and true predecessors of Rome in form that we think of when we hear or say the words: Roman Empire.

@metatronyt

5 жыл бұрын

That's why I specified Roman early Imperial.

@parysz5954

5 жыл бұрын

Metatron I know, i know. Just wanted to give my two words. I value your expertise highly. From what i recall you have degree in history, not me. Keep doing what you are doing, man. You run one of the channels that i keep in highest regard.

Dude, I just love the music you used for the Logistics part of the video.It's like the Romans are saying: "Fear us! For we are coming!"

Awesome content and great to see a channel recommending another channel.

Great video!

I think the Romans would have no truble taking care of themselves as long as it's the Roman army of the early empire

@summervibes2147

5 жыл бұрын

Nancy Volker agreed

@ians8917

5 жыл бұрын

I don't think they can stand the charge of western knignts any better than the turks, and the turks often turned to firearms in their defense against heavy cavalry charge of this sort that's to say, perhaps 3 times more powerful than any ancient cataphract and alexander's companions. And let's not forget that even the black prince could field enough guns to outfox any ancient engineering technology, not to mention the army of charles the bold, so in terms of siege, i'd vote for a late medieval army like the one joan d'arc conquered in orleans. The romans were well trained according to ancient writers, then again they might not be any better than the combination of the ottoman yaya, janissary infantry, sipahis of timar and kapikulu armies.

@projectilequestion

5 жыл бұрын

Not sure what you meant by the knights being 3 times more powerful than the cataphracts or alexander's companions, how did you get that figure. The medieval knight actually was less armoured than a cataphract, and it was the knights speed, at least in a straight line, that made him powerful. Behind the front line of knights were a line of their squires, and behind that, a line of sargents. Once the knights had broken through the line, the lighter rear lines would play havock with the now scattering enemy lines. Cataphract were only rarely used, for example when then enemy had a lot of armoured infantry, whereas the knights where used in practically every battle they went to. Just as a side not, maybe I should have said 'men at arms' not knight.

@Tiberious_Of_Elona

5 жыл бұрын

The Romans would win so easily you underestimate them so bad. They would let the cavalry charge. Surround them. Kill the horses. Then surround the knights and easily overwhelm them by stabbing the neck and under the arms. At the height of the empire. Rome would outnumber any English army 4 to 1 with each legion having it's own commander. Able to flank on their own. With highly disciplined men who could strategize on their own. Without needing a general. I dont think you have any idea how much a minority highly trained Knights where. They would be so outnumbered it would be a joke. The strategic structure of the legion would destroy any Medieval army. Most of your Medieval army is Men at arms with shield and spears. Not trained well enough to go close quarters against a Gladius.

@projectilequestion

5 жыл бұрын

I agree the Romans would win, but your tactic doesn't make any sense.

The Romans would most likely beat the Army of Harold at Hastings. The Romans had far more flexible tactics. They would have a good chance of winning against William the conqueror. Harold and William didn't have massively superior armor. The Romans were better trained (as best we know). The Romans army of Bellisarius had very sophisticated cavalry tactics. After losing the first battle against heavily armed knights, the Romans would devise counter tactics such as the deep ditches that Bellisarius used against the Persians at Dara; or use ballistas against heavy cavalry. 16 foot pikes are very effective which they used against Persian heavy armor. No heavily armored knights could penetrate well trained pike formations in any period of history.

@Max-ek3kf

4 жыл бұрын

I do agree, but the fact that the Romans can only go forward and attack uphill presents them at a disadvantage. The Huscarls would also be a problem, especially the ones of Harold and his brothers Gyrth and Leofwine. Cavalry wouldn't work against their shield wall either, just like how the Norman cavalry failed. In the long run though, with a good commander, the Romans would win, albeit with some casualties. And your last sentence is technically wrong; pikemen could be broken if they were attacked in the rear.

@kristofantal8801

4 жыл бұрын

Jesus Christ men... "The Romans would most likely beat the Army of Harold at Hastings. The Romans had far more flexible tactics. They would have a good chance of winning against William the conqueror. Harold and William didn't have massively superior armor. " That armies were partly a early medieval (6th-11th century), partly a high medieval (12th-13th century)...not LATE MEDIEVAL (14th-15th century)... By the late Middle Ages (14th-15th centuries) warfare in Europe (that depends from regions, cultures, complex thing) had become much more professional and complex. Strategies, tactics, techniques were developed and gunpowder was used as early as the mid-14th century. There is eg. Italy, where the condottiere system dates back to the 13th century. I think there is a lot of darkness in the people mind about the Middle Ages ... Not only were the feudal armies (where not only the peasants served anyway and there was no mass consription, and etc., this is a big myth, the feudal armies were not that primitive which many people think ...), but also mercenary armies ... city-states and rich cities (eg North-Central Italian states, Netherlands and Low Countries, Hanseatic cities, Swiss cantons, etc.) that were able to train and employ professional soldiers where military science (such as Milan) ) it was decisive ... gunpowder, gunmaking, armor making and many other things ... There were fencing techniques, schools, books, etc ... Very much myth about the Middle Ages, especially the Late Middle Ages ... A lot of stereotypes! The Late Middle Ages (specially middle to late 15th century) much more advanced than the Early Middle Ages or the High Midde Ages too.

@7dayspking

4 жыл бұрын

I don't think either of the tactics you described are as viable as you think for dealing with a late medieval force. 'No armoured knights could penetrate well trained pike formations in any point of history'...heavily armoured knights only existed in the late middle ages and they were consistently deployed against well trained pikemen, clearly they were effective. I don't think it's accurate to compare Roman 'pikes' and tactics to late medieval pikeman either.

@7dayspking

4 жыл бұрын

@@Max-ek3kf 'Cavalry wouldn't work against their shield wall', I fail to see exactly what problem the shield wall presents. Does it stop the Cavalry from approaching, deter them? Do the shields stop a lance a full tilt, do they stop the horses?

@Argentarius11

4 жыл бұрын

@@7dayspking They were effective in gaps in an infantry, flank or back attacks. The Scots effectively stopped heavily armored English knights. The Swiss effectively stopped mounted warriors. Looking at the Battle of Carrhae, the Roman infantry held up well against the highly trained and armored (for it's day) Parthian cataphracts. That was after enduring a rain of thousands of arrows by well trained horse archers. The Persians did have a 100 year period in the 400's of very heavily armored knights and horses. But it only lasted about 100 years. Tactics and strategy are critical. The Romans, did outstanding against the Parthians when led by Vintidius. He fought them in ways that countered all the advantages of cavalry and heavy cavalry. The Parthian/Persians were the outstanding horseman and horsearchers for many hundreds of years. So knights would be effective on open, flat country. The element of shock and surprize helps. The are not so great on hilly land with ditches and potholes. Once they get inside the infantry line, they will live up to their reputation: deadly.

Great video 💪

Very thoughtful!

I’ve been a Roman fan since I was a young boy. Your channel was recommended from another channel.

Why are we outright ignoring the vast majority of medieval, in fact for most of history, soldiers were poorer spearmen or swordsmen (mostly spearmen tho) and the minority were archers and even fewer were knights. And Romans still existed in the Middle Ages, their tactics and armour had evolved massively by then. Hell the Varangians used extremely well made plate armour towards the end of the empire.

@majungasaurusaaaa

5 жыл бұрын

Shhhh. Because remember, "romans" didn't exist in the medieval period. Their were only "Byzantines" who were not at all roman and certainly very "unwestern" and "uncivilized". And they all suddenly went dumb and forgot all the classical knowledge and thus it was to the islamic forces to preserve greek math. How they even got their hands on it was of course never taught in western history classes.

@chrisleonard2066

5 жыл бұрын

majungasaurusaaaa lmao how silly of me to forget

@magister.mortran

5 жыл бұрын

Technically Romans existed until the 19th century (HRE) and they fought with rifles and canons at the end. This is also not taught in Western history classes, since it would not fit well into the modern Anglo-Saxon world view of the Middle Ages populated by primitive brutes until the British Enlightenment came.

@chrisleonard2066

5 жыл бұрын

Magister Mortran Rome ended in 1453, the people of the HRE never truly considered themselves as Romans and the HRE never ruled Rome as part of its domain. It was strictly an aesthetic title, seeing as the Imperial Dignity of the West was directly presented to the Eastern Emperor in 480 with the collapse of the Regime of Julius Nepos. As for Romans themselves, many Greek speakers called themselves as such until Greek Independence and even into the 20th century.

@majungasaurusaaaa

5 жыл бұрын

Heck, the Ottoman and the Russian empire had better roman claims than the HRE. One literally replaced the roman empire as the regional super power based in Constantinople, the other had roman royal bloodline. The HRE as people jokingly say is neither holy, roman or an empire.

I love this type of videos

Love this guys content.

WE WANT THIS TO BE A SERIES

Talking about the Clash of Medieval Army vs. Roman Imperial Army, can we have a conceptual battle between the joined forced of the Romans and the late antiquity army vs. the Mongols?

Great video 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

Thanks for the video. Good points through out. However, IMHO, I would still back a Principate/Early Imperial Roman army against any proceeding army right up to the widespread introduction of gunpowder weapons. The only advantage that I can see for the medieval armies would be the stirrup, though the roman saddle has been shown to be very good. I don't think that plate armour would be the obstacle you are implying. Formidable yes, but not insurmountable. Also, don't forget that a legion does not fight on it's own. It would have almost the same number of auxiliary troops with it. The legion provides the heavy infantry (mostly) and the auxiliaries provide archers, cavalry etc. Then there is roman field artillery, this would almost certainly be able to do great damage to a full plate knight (thinking of scorpions here). I agree with you however on your points about the commander and terrain being very important factors though. The last point I'd like to make is that you would be pitting a well and uniformly equipped, highly trained and experienced professional army, the Romans, (which we won't see again until the late16oo's into the1700's) against an army with admittedly a very professional and tough core, the Knights. Who are armed and armoured excellently, but with the balance, and majority, being drafted peasants or part time guardsmen (or mercenaries who fight for money not king and country) in a wide variety of armour, from that which is almost as good as the knights to almost no or minimal armour. And varying levels of training and experience. Were there medieval armies that would beat a Roman legion? Very definitely! But on the whole my money would be on the Romans almost every time. Thanks again for a thought provoking topic.

@TrueFork

4 жыл бұрын

We've had gunpowder since the 1300s, well before full plate armor even. Cannons were definitely used at Crecy (1346).

If the Normans were the enemy they would probably fan boy over the Romans since the Normans are nerds.

@tauempire1793

3 жыл бұрын

Lmao

Actually that question is already answered in history. The medieval Romans were the Byzantine who were versed in classic roman tactics and strategies but armed appropriately for the times, and they didn't in my opinion fair very well against western or eastern medieval armies of their day.

@SuperGman117

5 жыл бұрын

As I understand it, they were able to repulse some renegade forces of the First Crusade with relative ease, but then again, the Fourth Crusade totally fucked their entire empire.

@ilovehistory5210

5 жыл бұрын

mysticonthehill Post 476 they adapeted their tactics with the times

@Dr_Evil_Mc-Bad

5 жыл бұрын

the fourth Crusade wasn't a good example of byzantine military effectiveness against their western counterparts. that crusade was won through treachery and deciet, not through victories of combating armies.

@nondorian

5 жыл бұрын

On the other hand treachery and deceit is also a valid way to wage war

@Altrantis

5 жыл бұрын

Romans did fight against heavy, fully armored lance cavalry (though they used both hands rather than couching it) it didn't go well for the Romans. i2.wp.com/www.learning-history.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Cataphracts-4.jpg?fit=850%2C560&ssl=1

Thank you. Got me think of a screenplay

It would be amazing to see you do a video on the dominate of diocletian versus a medival army or that of the late Roman Empire under Justinian which had loads and loads of auxilia. Love your channe have for years

Without a doubt the Romans would lose the first engagement but that technological advantage the medieval soldiers have won't last forever the Romans would quickly and learn from their mistakes on the battlefield especially if they have intellectual generals plotting and strategizing behind the scenes while powerful generals that are good at boosting morale on the battlefield leading the charge

@LegatusLucius1994

5 жыл бұрын

I fucked up everything I said in this video fucking autocorrect

@Tiberious_Of_Elona

5 жыл бұрын

The Romans would win so easily you underestimate them so bad. They would let the cavalry charge. Surround them. Kill the horses. Then surround the knights and easily overwhelm them by stabbing the neck and under the arms. At the height of the empire. Rome would outnumber any English army 4 to 1 with each legion having it's own commander. Able to flank on their own. With highly disciplined men who could strategize on their own. Without needing a general.

@houseking9211

5 жыл бұрын

So, the Romans are so skilled that they can develop and forge new armor and weapons mid battle? Quite impressive.

Well, on the one hand The Roman Empire fell in 1453, with The Holly Roman Empire falling in 1806 and the middle ages are usually considered to have come to an end with the discovery of the New World by Christopher Columbus in 1492.... so, depending on whether we count the descendants of the barbarians that sacked Rome as Roman or not, Rome either wins the fight, or looses it.

@magister.mortran

5 жыл бұрын

I really like your comment. Few people are aware of that issue. The Roman Empire ceased to be Roman when Diocletian divided it and moved the capital away from Rome. So it was an imperial edict that ended Roman culture, no external cause. It was a voluntary end. Neither Byzantium in the East nor the Holy Roman Empire in the West truly represented Roman culture. But they represented the institution of the Empire. If we count them as Romans, then a medieval army could be considered a Roman army, just from another era and optimized for other kinds of opponents.

Came here from a recommendation by Invicta. Not disappointed! Interesting channel, please keep collaborating gents.

Very insightful consideration.

French commanders, masters of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

@Altrantis

5 жыл бұрын

Only because they always focus on the same few battles where the Brits beat the french because we're speaking in English so we get their perspective. I mean, you know in the end of the war the English got equally destroyed by the french in Patay and Chatillon than the other way around in Agincourt and Crècy, and won the war, right?

@Cyricist001

5 жыл бұрын

It was also the French cavalry that fucked up the battle of Golden Spurs and the battle of Nicopolis.

@Altrantis

5 жыл бұрын

And won in a whole bunch of others. Heavy cavalry was hugely powerful, and it's heavily associated with France because of how many of them the French could field. Therefore, any case where the French cavalry was defeated it was a huge deal, and it becomes a memorable event people remember in posterity and keep quoting. It's like if we constantly talked about how the US lost the Vietnam war to show how the massive military power that is the US can be defeated by some like... militia in the jungle, and then people started thinking the US was super incompetent and always lost wars and all their technology was super expensive but all for show because they lost all the time. Yet we know the US almost always crushes whoever they attack.

@Cyricist001

5 жыл бұрын

The ones I have mentioned are examples of the French army holding all the cards and still losing. There's a difference between losing a battle and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. For example, the battle of hattin wasn't included in the last comment because while the French lost, they were outnumbered, so it doesn't fall under the category. And this wasn't just a one off, it's repeated rather often by the French cavalry of the 13-14. century. The moment the nobles thought they couldn't lose, they became overconfident glory seekers that lost battles they had no business losing. The French and English were fortunate to be on the tail end of Euroasian continent, if they weren't protected by water, it's doubtful they would have endured. Poland and Hungary for example had excellent cavalry units, but their location means that they can be attacked from all sides and was hard to defend, especially since they were the first to be hit by invaders from the east.

@SilverTemplar

5 жыл бұрын

Bertrand du Guesclin was a French commander who had the odds stacked against him in many occasions but was still hugely successful. Take for example the Battle of Cocherel where the English outnumbered the French fairly dramatically. The English maintained their defensive positions but the Eagle of Brittany performed a massive flank following a false retreat which utterly smashed the English so severely that Bertrand du Guesclin was able to capture the English commander Sir Jean III de Grailly. Sir Jean was no commander to just scoff at either, being responsible for nearly encircling the French at Poitiers, in which this maneuver saw the capture of King John II.

As for the point about the pilum not being an effective weapon against the heavy cavalry, I can't imagine the Romans would bother trying to throw their pila through the knights' heavy armour, not when they are riding much less heavily armoured horses. You don't have to kill the rider to break a cavalry charge, killing the horses stops the cavalry charge dead in it's tracks too.

@neutronalchemist3241

5 жыл бұрын

They probably wouldn't even waste the pila. IE at Magnesia they disrupted the charge of the chariots and prevented that of the elephants using slings. Slings were a favorite of Roman legionaries, since they were light to carry and inexpensive (and a long sling had about the same range than a longbow).

@martintieber7756

5 жыл бұрын

@@neutronalchemist3241 a sling would be utterly useless against knights amd horses in plate armour.

@neutronalchemist3241

5 жыл бұрын

@@martintieber7756 "horses in plate armor"? How many "horses in plate armor" do you think had ever been? In CONTEMPORARY (not the 19th century stuff) depictions of medieval battles is rare to see them even wearing simple saddlecloths. Medieval war-horses usually didn't wear ANY form of armor.

Very educational!

I love how you mentioned Agincourt, the history squad with Kevin hicks talks about the English bowman and so many famous battles and actual history as well very cool! I also just watched a video Kevin did Or he said the same thing you did about armor he doesn't believe that arrows could pierce it in most cases.

Oke i just watched 10 seconds further and you said "A modern well trained and well deploid medieval army will wipe out the roman army." I take back what i just said :)

10:00 if the romans aimed their throwing spears at the horses, toppling them will likely kill the rider, and result in alot of toppling and dead by being trampled from the riders coming in behind. Throwing spears are AMAZING against cavalry.

@Max-ek3kf

4 жыл бұрын

The Romans may be sent running for their lives before the collision. It's psychological warfare. The horses are also armoured well. "Trampling" wasn't an effective way of killing an armoured soldier either, it was more a way of forcing them aside and gaining momentum for your lance, plus an intimidating look to frighten enemy infantry. So once the charge has struck, the Romans also have to deal with many angry dismounted knights who will deal a lot of damage.

@StVertz

4 жыл бұрын

Max well you have to understand that the Romans held off elephants and Hannibal with discipline. Henry V held off some cocky French bois

super interesting and good content!

Please make more speculative videos like this. This was really great!

I don’t understand why he doesn’t consider any of the most important factors. He’s is just talking about armor and generals. Completely ignoring the fact that Roman armies would outnumber the medieval armies significantly. There is no late medieval army that can come close to the number of legionaries they would commit to a battle in the first century. Not to mention that the Romans would be significantly more disciplined and outlast out of sheer endurance. I am not downplaying the impact of full plate armor or a heavy shock cavalry. But this leaves out so many things

@asuka7309

5 жыл бұрын

All of Rome's legions and Germanic allies in France combined that were used when Atilla invaded were less numerous than the French army at its peak in the HYW. so no, you're wrong.

@XBebopo

5 жыл бұрын

When Atilla attacked, Rome was on its last legs. It was being attacked on all fronts by various enemies, and the empire in general was politically unstable. The past few centuries had been marked by civil war after civil war, with intermediate periods of political stability. And, still, the Romans were able to field an army of 30-80k at a moment's notice and defeat one of the greatest conquerors of the period. Also, in the preceding decades, the ROmans had lost the wealthy province of Africa, which severely dimished their tax income and also their grain supply. Not to mention that the Empire was split into two at this point, and so, more accurately, the Western Roman Empire no longer had access to the tax revenue stream of the wealthier Eastern provinces either. So, we're looking at a Rome that at this point was beset by enemies everywhere, that was very short on funding, had a severe lack of strong leadership, and *still* they mustered a huge army that was able to defeat Atilla.

@asuka7309

5 жыл бұрын

lmao dude, even with all Rome's problems in the late era Gaul didn't turn into some rundown backwater. Gaul's population had nearly doubled compared to the early empire (no lack of manpower at all), at this point in time the place was filled with Germanic tribes who already had armies and allied with Rome (most didn't really like the Huns), and the vast majority of Arthius' army was also already in Gaul. For once in its late history the Western Roman Empire was actually in a pretty good position. Oh, and forget that "80k", there's no way that number is realistic. Also while some of your taxation problems are relevant (Africa), talking about the ERE is not. Western Rome might no longer have the eastern taxes, you know what they also didn't have anymore? The requirement to station troops in the ERE, no massively long land borders, no regular conflicts with an equally strong empire like the Sassanids. Look at the Roman Empire under Constantine I, the army never was as massive and never would be as massive again, counting 600.000 men. You know how many of those were stationed in the west? Only 200.000 of them, all the other 400.000 were in the eastern provinces. Mostly because of all the aforementioned reasons.

@Tiberious_Of_Elona

5 жыл бұрын

France did not have 600,000 men. Please show me a 600k french medieval army. The Romans would win so easily you underestimate them so bad. They would let the cavalry charge. Surround them. Kill the horses. Then surround the knights and easily overwhelm them by stabbing the neck and under the arms. At the height of the empire. Rome would outnumber any English army 4 to 1 with each legion having it's own commander. Able to flank on their own. With highly disciplined men who could strategize on their own. Without needing a general. Keep jerking off to that shiny plate armor. While your boys all get surrounded and die to a gladius to the neck.

@calebbyars

5 жыл бұрын

Doesn’t even have to be 600k, show me any medieval French army that comes anywhere close to a full strength Roman army. At Philippi alone 200,000 standard Roman legionaries fought, and 200,000 more auxiliary troops. There is nothing that compares to that. Even in modern wars there are no single day battles where 400,000 men fought against each other. Much less medieval armies. The only thing that they have on the Romans is heavy cavalry, and they only ever had a few hundred heavy horse in any battle. The Romans have better training, better discipline, and were on average better equipped.

What if: Roman legion VS Zulu Impi?

@minikkhshaaan5746

4 жыл бұрын

Trashthlete lots of numbers and gorilla warfare would pose quite a threat

@cbxadt440

4 жыл бұрын

@Chin Brumback NO THEY'D JUST LET THEIR WAR BEASTS TRAMPLE THOSE TURDS, ID DOUBT ROMANS WOULD WANT TO GET FECAL MATTER ON THEMSELVES

@cbxadt440

4 жыл бұрын

LOL WHERE THE ZULUS EVER EVEN AWARE OF METAL, THEY WOULD GET SLAUGHTER LIKE SHEEP BY THE ROMANS

@matthewbreytenbach4483

4 жыл бұрын

@@cbxadt440 For those passing through, yes the Zulu people were aware of metal. They used iron weapons.

@tauempire1793

3 жыл бұрын

evolution legion size depends on the time period for the Roman's so while it might be 6'000 was the average for a Legion during one time period, another could have 30'000 in a legion

Wonderful Video! And as you sad, in the end it comes all down to the factors in the scenario. (If you dont like the outcome of the simulation, change tha factors) I imagine a Legionary, that has served in the East, looking at the galloping french shock cavalry and thinking "Not again the Cataphracts!" But I questioned myself: What about the roman artillery? In the few sources about actual battles, that we have, suggest, that they probably deployed the Artillery in open field-battles. That seems to me a point, maybe worth considering. (Especially against the Knighly Armour, if the Pila and Arrows dont work) Also: How about a Video with trials Crossbow/Longbow against a scutum. Would it hold off the Bolt/Arrow at "average Fighting Range"? Edit: just saw the "Medieval Weapons VS Roman Armour"-Video... Whoopsie xD and remembered, that the Medieval Armour war build to withstand a Longbow/Crossbow...

Awesome vids

SKYRIM BELONGS TO THE NORDS!!!!

@rodom303

5 жыл бұрын

Son of Rome id like to say where are the falmer and the dwemer? And whoever owns markarth owns the reach m8

@rodom303

5 жыл бұрын

DAB on haters LOGAN PAULER FOR LIFE MAVERICK MERCH what you imperials like to forget is the nords built the empire, their blood sustains it. The nords had their own empire and way before the cyrodilic empire my dude.

@rodom303

5 жыл бұрын

DAB on haters LOGAN PAULER FOR LIFE MAVERICK MERCH the only reason the nords joined the empire was because talos had the thu’um and they respected that The mede dynasty only rules on false claims and a false throne No dragon blood of Saint Alessia runs through their veins The imperial dogs have no right to step foot beyond the pale pass

@politichistoric8796

5 жыл бұрын

JordaniusVonR303 FOR THE EMPIRE

@rodom303

5 жыл бұрын

Flex Gopnik I cannot deny this under mighty Lorkhan we shall unite and reclaim our rightful place amongst the mighty

Great video! Fun to think about. I do believe if Rome came down from the clouds suddenly into 13th century Europe they would crush their enemies after a few battles of catching up. The education of the leadership was so superior to any in contemporary Medieval Europe that they could enjoy context in what they were facing to a much greater degree. Sheer numbers of disciplined troops would neutralize technicalogical advancement in weapons and armor. And Rome would surely adapt. It wouldn't take long for Romans to attract smithies to their side and make field mods to their equipment after inspections of captured equipment. The engineering corps would have made some big trouble for those Medieval armies as well. IMO the legions would win more often than not.

@majungasaurusaaaa

5 жыл бұрын

Rome lost its share of battles and kept adapting and bouncing back. They weren't invincible or had genius generals. What they had was organization strength, the education needed to muster men and resources, the pragmatic approach to learn and adapt and unrelenting tenacity.

@Tiberious_Of_Elona

5 жыл бұрын

They did have genius generals. They just where not at every battle in it's history. Medieval knights would be fucked in the ass. The legions would let them charge. Kill the barley armored horses. Guess what? Now they are on the ground fighting against the most experience close quarters fighting force in history. Plate armor is still weak in the neck and under the arms. Gladius will go right in. Not to mention any legion will outnumber the knights 4 to 1. Also well trained knights where not the majority of most medieval armies. Which means most of their army is useless against a Legion.

Good job!

Excellent video. Continue as you are doing. Point of comparison: mentioned the rounded or the angled shape of the knights armour and its ability to deflect arrows. The Russian T-34 tank of WWII was may be the first to use angled armour to deflect shells which gave the armour the same protective power as a thicker flat armour which was used in the German tanks. After the Germans encountered the T-34, they too began using angled armour on their new tanks increasing the protection and using less steel and making a lighter, more maneuverable tank. Imagine if the Romans had known about the physics of this concept and employed it in the design of their armour, and I think they had an inkling of an idea about it when they made their shields rounded, how much more effective they could have been in battle? Along with the comparisons presented here, I've all ways wondered what it would've been like for an American battleship to engage a German battleship. In both WW's, the RN engaged the Kriegsmarine but there was never an engagement between a US ship and a German ship. Of course, the USN fought the submarines but never a battle like Jutland nor with the Bismark. Realize it is about another time and place and outside the purview of the channel but have all ways speculated and wondered. Final point: as the war dragged-on in the Pacific, the USN was larger than the combined navies of her allies.