Who would win: Roman Legioneers or 1770s era army?

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: fatbaby
How about this

Who would win...

A civil war era army led by Gen. Jackson or modern day canada + france (no aircraft or howitzers)?

stonewall? stonewall was good because lee could give him very simple orders and it was like him and lee were telepathically linked across the battlefied. if he wasn't dead i'm not sure the federal army would have won at gettysburg

 

[ryzmah]

Originally posted by: nick1985
i find it hard to believe that the roman army got so many votes. are you guys insane?! the 1770 army would destroy them. they had armor, SO WHAT! it was not very good armor, and bows and cross-cows could penetrate it, so a gun will have no problem pearcing it. the romans move ath the speed of a turtle with all of their gear. they would be buthchered. and if the 1770 army had cannon with grapeshot, it would be a complete bloodbath, no questions asked

The gear shouldn't have made too much difference, over the last 3000 years the amount of weight carried by heavy infantry has been relatively unchanged (If I remember correctly it's around 60 lbs). The romans would have moved slower because their tactics demand staying in ranks and they are going to have to be the ones advancing because a sword doesn't have much range.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ryzmah

Originally posted by: nick1985
i find it hard to believe that the roman army got so many votes. are you guys insane?! the 1770 army would destroy them. they had armor, SO WHAT! it was not very good armor, and bows and cross-cows could penetrate it, so a gun will have no problem pearcing it. the romans move ath the speed of a turtle with all of their gear. they would be buthchered. and if the 1770 army had cannon with grapeshot, it would be a complete bloodbath, no questions asked

The gear shouldn't have made too much difference, over the last 3000 years the amount of weight carried by heavy infantry has been relatively unchanged (If I remember correctly it's around 60 lbs). The romans would have moved slower because their tactics demand staying in ranks and they are going to have to be the ones advancing because a sword doesn't have much range.

Plus they were smaller of stature.

 

[Michael]

Roman armor is not all that heavy and they could move at a pretty good clip. I have fought in armor fpr years and can move almost as quickly as I can without anything on.

I have some reference books where tests were made on the range and accuracy of muskets. From what I remember, each indivual one was not highly accurate. That is why armies at the time preferred massed fire. Same for archers - one knight could beat one archer (you can actually see and block an arrow that is comingat you if you only have one archer to worry about. It actually is possible to bat them out of the air with your sword).

Michael

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: wyvrn
How about 2000 roman legioneers vs. 25 modern day marines (no tanks or vehicles)?

The Marines would wipe out the Romans, probably not taking a single loss. Unless their ammo ran out of course.

Hopper

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: fatbaby
How about this

Who would win...

A civil war era army led by Gen. Jackson or modern day canada + france (no aircraft or howitzers)?

That's too easy...

The modern day army would win, they would have modern assualt rifles, machine guns, etc.

Hopper

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky

Originally posted by: ryzmah
We talked about something like this in my military history course - the professor's position was that alexander the great's army would have been able to defeat any army in history before Gustavus Adolphus and the introduction of effective firearm use. After his tactics became well known cannons, howitzers, etc. would have made far too big a difference on the side of a more modern army as long as the army has enough horses to move them around.

Sounds like an interesting professor. Time for me to see if Madison has a military history course (which I'm sure they do).

you'd be surprised. studying warfare is usually looked down upon by history professors, so if you actually do get a course most of the texts will be written by "buffs" and not academics. its amazing that these people can overlook something that is so sweeping in its effect on human events.

Actually, I've never seen that to be the case. History professors don't tend to spend much time on wars, because they're a whole subject in and of themselves. Ultimately, it's the outcome of the war that matters. For further information on a war, you'll take a class that delves into that specific event. Every now and then, a history professor will assign readings delving a bit deeper into warfare, such as when my ancient history professor had us read up on Greek warfare.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Michael
Roman armor is not all that heavy and they could move at a pretty good clip. I have fought in armor fpr years and can move almost as quickly as I can without anything on.

Yes, the armor was not that heavy. It also wasn't very useful, but that point has been covered.

I have some reference books where tests were made on the range and accuracy of muskets. From what I remember, each indivual one was not highly accurate.

No, the mass produced muskets were not very accurate, but they did have some that were better than average for sniper use (yes, they even had snipers back then).

In any case, the armor was useless for this kind of weapon, and the Romans would have been cut to ribbons.

Hopper

 

[SociallyChallenged]

I would!!!!!

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ryzmah

Originally posted by: nick1985
i find it hard to believe that the roman army got so many votes. are you guys insane?! the 1770 army would destroy them. they had armor, SO WHAT! it was not very good armor, and bows and cross-cows could penetrate it, so a gun will have no problem pearcing it. the romans move ath the speed of a turtle with all of their gear. they would be buthchered. and if the 1770 army had cannon with grapeshot, it would be a complete bloodbath, no questions asked

The gear shouldn't have made too much difference, over the last 3000 years the amount of weight carried by heavy infantry has been relatively unchanged (If I remember correctly it's around 60 lbs). The romans would have moved slower because their tactics demand staying in ranks and they are going to have to be the ones advancing because a sword doesn't have much range.

Plus they were smaller of stature.

??

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ryzmah

Originally posted by: nick1985
i find it hard to believe that the roman army got so many votes. are you guys insane?! the 1770 army would destroy them. they had armor, SO WHAT! it was not very good armor, and bows and cross-cows could penetrate it, so a gun will have no problem pearcing it. the romans move ath the speed of a turtle with all of their gear. they would be buthchered. and if the 1770 army had cannon with grapeshot, it would be a complete bloodbath, no questions asked

The gear shouldn't have made too much difference, over the last 3000 years the amount of weight carried by heavy infantry has been relatively unchanged (If I remember correctly it's around 60 lbs). The romans would have moved slower because their tactics demand staying in ranks and they are going to have to be the ones advancing because a sword doesn't have much range.

Plus they were smaller of stature.

??

60lbs on a guy who's 5'5" and 140lbs is a lot more than 60lbs on a guy who's 6' and 190lbs.

RE mass fire:

Mass fire is still a good thing because people firing in a combat situation are rarely going to do so accurately. I think the overall accuracy rate during WWII was something like 15%. It was slightly higher in Vietnam but that's due to closer combat more than anything else.


Lethal

 

[dquan97]

The British had snipers who could kill from 100yards away.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky

Originally posted by: ryzmah
We talked about something like this in my military history course - the professor's position was that alexander the great's army would have been able to defeat any army in history before Gustavus Adolphus and the introduction of effective firearm use. After his tactics became well known cannons, howitzers, etc. would have made far too big a difference on the side of a more modern army as long as the army has enough horses to move them around.

Sounds like an interesting professor. Time for me to see if Madison has a military history course (which I'm sure they do).

you'd be surprised. studying warfare is usually looked down upon by history professors, so if you actually do get a course most of the texts will be written by "buffs" and not academics. its amazing that these people can overlook something that is so sweeping in its effect on human events.

Actually, I've never seen that to be the case. History professors don't tend to spend much time on wars, because they're a whole subject in and of themselves. Ultimately, it's the outcome of the war that matters. For further information on a war, you'll take a class that delves into that specific event. Every now and then, a history professor will assign readings delving a bit deeper into warfare, such as when my ancient history professor had us read up on Greek warfare.

thats not what the 1 professor i had who actually studied wars (zulu mostly) said. hell, i had a class on revolutionary france and we mostly skimmed over the war part. very few of them are interested in the personalities involved and want to look at structural factors, because you'll find that a lot of history professors are structuralists. that is, they believe that the wave of history caused the events and not the actors involved. which isn't very satisfying to me, because that doesn't explain quite a bit of what actually happened (like, germany probably wouldn't exist today had the czar not died and someone who was a great admirer of frederick the great not achieved the throne) plus, a lot of them consider wars to be some sort of failing on the part of humanity. you'll rarely find a prof who was entering academia during the vietnam era specialize in war.

edit: like i said above, if stonewall jackson hadn't been shot a month beforehand, would the federal soldiers have held at gettysburg? i don't give them a very good chance of it. would the rebels have then marched on washington and taken the US capital? what would have happened then?

 

[Pacfanweb]

Wouldn't even be close. There was a reason that armies switched to guns.

 

[ReiAyanami]

1770s redcoats didn't necessarily have better discipline, it was more of they were told to s tab (w/ bayonet) any fallen soldier of their own in front of them to ensure they werent faking getting shot in battle.

 

[idNut]

Very cool thread. I love Roman times.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
The main problem of course with sending AK-47s back to the British is actually rather simple. What do you do when the Americans get ahold of one? If you send back enough, one or another is likely to fall into American hands. When that happens, will they figure out how to copy one using manafacturing methods of the time? Will the British? Even if not, just taking one apart would teach the gun smiths of the day far more than they should know given their background. They would get two hundred years of education in gun design in 5 minutes. I believe they would figure them out, but I don't know if they would be reproduceable given the technology of the day. Maybe Springfield 1903 bolt action rifles would be more reasonable, those would also be very useful given the muskets everyone carried in 1781. Hopper

Nope. You forget metallurgy. The metals of the day would not have allowed them to copy a modern weapon. Certainly some improvement in design may have occured, but not to the degree you propose.

 

[glenn1]

The Marines would wipe out the Romans, probably not taking a single loss. Unless their ammo ran out of course.

Agreed. A modern MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unit) with its supporting arms (air support, etc) would easily be able to hold out against any of the famous armies of history without a problem, probably even all put together.

For those who disagree with a technologically superior foe resoundingly beating an opponent, look into either the first Gulf War or the events depicted in Blackhawk Down. There it was a much more even contest and the U.S. forces still devastated the opposition in convincing fashion.

 

[Grasshopper27]

re: Black Hawk Down

We lost 18 soldiers in a ground battle without proper air or armor support.

They lost about 1,500 gunmen and probably twice as many again wounded.

Sadly, it also showed how you can win a battle and lose the war, our political leaders washed their hands of it and pulled out.

Hopper

 

[StinkyPinky]

Um....I think countries in the 1700's adopted muskets and cannons for a reason. If they werent superior, they would be sticking to swords and shields. Wasn't the battle of Waterloo (France v England) just after 1770? From what I've seen of that battle, any Roman army would have been torn to pieces.

I think a more interesting comparision would be a 2000-strong European army from around 1300 consisiting of armoured knights, pikemen, medieval armour, longbowmen, crossbowmen, regular soliders, and drafted peasants against 2000 Roman soliders. 1300 AD armour, steel, and weapons were probably better, but I doubt their discilpline was the same.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
An entertaining thought, but almost impossible to accurately spec out. The Romans were the second most effective military force in world history (Alexander the Great ranks first, due to sheer area conquered in a short time span). They proved themselves militarily superior to all of the people throughout the Mediterranean, Northern Africa, and Gaul. Only after a long drawn out decline, did their military superiority finally dim. This superiority was the result of very advanced battlefield tactics (partially drawn from the Greek phalanx), combined with outstanding military leadership (e.g. Caesar, Scipio Africanus, etc.). The British are an entirely different beast. Much of their military supremacy was a result of their incredible naval prowess (not the Romans biggest strongpoint - but not too weak either (Actium)). The British land tactics weren't drastically superior to others during their time period - one of the reasons that they were unable to form an empire the size of the Roman empire (whether they wanted this burden is another question altogether). Yes, gunpowder would give the British some advantage. However, as others here have brought up, it cannot be forgotten that the Romans had their own set of ranged weapons, including archers and bolts. Trained archers could do quite a number on the British ranks, especially considering that the British have little to no protection from piercing weapons (which the ancients did have). The Romans would also be more effective melee fighters, because their primary forces are designed to accomplish this task. Thus, instead of having an all purpose unit that isn't spectacular at any one area (British), the Romans would have multiple independent units with individual areas of expertise. This combination of units could quite easily prove the decisive factor in a Roman victory, assuming that the initial shock of gun powder doesn't completely cause chaos within the ranks.

FYI, I'm majoring in Classics and Rhetoric, so I do have some background in this.

Say what?? Was that a typo? The British Empire was waaay bigger than the Roman Empire. At its height it had Canada, India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, half of Africa, lots of islands including Hong Kong and Singapore, and probably some other places I'm forgetting. Plus it had a lot of influence in areas not part of its empire.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: CadetLee
This may give some indirect info on the accuracy of archers:

1346 AD - 26th August - Battle of Crecy - Edward III of England leads his army against the French. Some accounts of the battle say that the English archers had kept their flax bowstrings dry by putting them under their helmets as it had been raining the day before.
The French force of crossbowmen attacked from the front, but maybe due to the rain, many misfired or the bowstrings snapped. The English archers showered them with arrows before they could reload. Most of the crossbowmen fled. The French cavalry then charged, but were decimated by the English archers.
1,542 French knights are killed with only 50 English killed.

link

If they killed 1,542 charging French knights while only losing 50 of their own, their rate of fire as well as lethality must be respected. =)

Granted, the knights can't shoot...but this may put into perspective the range and accuracy which longbows are capable of.

Accuracy:

1520 AD - Henry VIII demonstrates his skill with the longbow at a summit meeting hosted by the French King, where he repeatedly shot into the centre of a target at a distance of 220 metres ( 240 yards ).

Not too bad by any standard..but yes, an immense amount of training would be required.

1545 AD - King Henry's flagship "Mary Rose" sinks in the Solent near Portsmouth, England. The remains are recovered in 1982 from the fine silt that has preserved the hull and its contents. Over 100 longbows were found all made from fine-grained yew. The yew was shaped into a 'D' section with sapwood on the back of the bow and a thicker section of heartwood on the belly. This worked as an efficient natural lamination giving the bow strength. Boxes of arrows were also found, bound in bundles of 24 and kept apart with a pierced circular leather disc to prevent crushing the goose flight feathers. The shafts were 800mm long, 10mm diameter and made from ash wood. A nock was cut into the base of each shaft and reinforced with a v-shaped horn insert. It has been estimated that the range of these longbows with a 41 kg ( 90 lb. ) draw weight could have been up to 250 metres. Also other records indicate that a practised archer could shoot up to 12 arrows per minute.
( Imagine what an army of a thousand archers could do to an opposing force.
The reports of the sky darkening with arrows were a matter of fact ! )

An arrow every five seconds from 500 archers is 6,000 arrows per minute. If you put trained archers vs troops/muskets at ~100 yards, assuming an even number of each, it would appear that the musket guys would be annihilated.

Those are all accounts of the English longbow. The Romans did not have that weapon. Also, the British had the longbow... and yet they took up the musket by the 1700s... possibly because it made more sense, militarily.