|
>>
|
No. 234
Only having a degree in Eurasian history, I posit that equal numbers of Romans would easily handle most medieval foes. Legions were far better trained and organized. Both were essentially open field armies, removing the Germanic advantages when they annihilated their Legions. No medieval army had anything resembling the horse archers of the Levant powers, another of Rome's counters. The third to consistently pound Rome was the Successor pike and elephant armies of Pyrrhus, but he was such a general as to be ranked above Hannibal,,,By Hannibal himself. The bulk of any Roman army would be legionaries, competent and reliable, but not up to Knight grade. The bulk of most medieval armies would be levied serfs and other ill-trained troops forced to the field and poorly motivated. Crossbows, longbows and cannon would kill many, but none of these troops could do more than the simplest of maneuvers, including getting out of the way of a fast approaching block of heavily shielded Romans. Swiss pikes were well trained and motivated, but vulnerable to well protected infantry that could get inside the points. English longbows are lethal at range, but easily flanked. The French at Agincourt were just idiots.
|