"Romans" v "Renaissance"

[Venusian Broon]

Hmm. I can see a few 20k+ armies for Rome before even looking at the civil war where they fielded huge armies - Medway is one example - where as battles like Cerignola and La Motta are around 10k a side.

Hmm <cracks knuckles>

Okay I just picked a war at random: The War of the League of Cambrai 1508-1516:

I lowballed all the numbers to get the average if I was given a range


Agnadello 30,000 v 15,000

Padua (siege) 40,000 v 15,000

Brescia (siege) 12,000 v 15,000+

Ravenna 23,000 v 21,000

Novara 22,000 v 11,000 - 20,000 (unknown exactly how many swiss)

Battle of the Spurs 30,000 overall (but many fewer were engaged) v 7,000

Flodden 26,000 v 30-40,000

La Motta 13,000 v 9,000

Marignano 30,000 v 22,000



Average size of army: 20,611

Tbh, I suspect a well led Roman army could beat a poorly led Napoleonic era army. It's not like we don't see massed infantry break foes in melee in this period, and well trained archers and slingers would be a very nasty surprise for unarmoured outranged infantry. I'd also point out that Napoleonic era artillery is still firing only two roundshot a minute...

Technically I do think a man with a rifle and a bayonet has the advantage over one with a sword, never mind how many shots he got off before the roman could get within arms reach - the longer reach of the bayonet is a significant advantage- Lindybeige did some interesting videos on how one-on-one a spear usually beats a sword. True in a mass melee, this advantage does get cut down a lot. But with proper bayonet drill - hence me pointing out Culloden, where the government forces had to deal with highlanders who relied on shock tactics and getting close and personal with swords and dirks - it can continue to be relevant.

Re: the cannons, I was thinking about the small light field cannons of Gustuvus Adolphus - '3 pounders' I believe - who had a firing rate 3-5 times more than the heavier guns of the opposition. Also they were pioneering canister shot. I don't know when they went out of favour nor do I know if that means they were firing 6-10 shots per minute. (10 per minute certainly seems to be the max allowed if you have 6 second cycle.)

 

[Valtharius]

I think it would be a fun added twist if you made the Renaissance soldiers Byzantines.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Repeated mention has been made of roman cavalry, but if we're talking late Republic/early Empire then my impression is that Roman cavalry will be in limited numbers anyway, and where they are used offensively will be light auxiliaries such as Nubian archers who act more like skirmishing troops and would be hard to counter.

Pikes alone may not be a problem, as my impression is that they will be close to the Hoplite fighting style that the Romans were able to overcome. Gunpowder is plain unfair advantage though.

The main advantage of the Roman legion IMO isn't discipline, it's the fact that no matter how many legions you wipe out, more turn up until the Romans finally win. Rome had a huge source of manpower to field multiple new legions at short notice.

 

[Montero]

. Gunpowder is plain unfair advantage though.

Up to a point. It is very hard to use on any day when the rain is hammering down - turns to black soup. If both sides are gunpowder armies, they are equally disadvantaged. If only one side is, then the disadvantage is mostly on one side - with allowance for archers struggling with wet bow strings and drummers not able to signal the orders due to wet drum skins.
Never underestimate the impact of mud on a battle. It isn't just the skidding around, it's dealing with vast clots of crap on your feet dragging you back.

 

[sknox]

Both Roman and Renaissance are too vague. Specifiy a century. And, for the Renaissance side, specify the army.

As others have noted, there were huge changes over the course of, say, 1400 to 1700. The biggest for your consideration is the advent of field artillery. You can't presume pikes, nor muskets. It was all just too much in flux. Folks have already spoken to the variations on the Roman side.

In short, you can choose a persuasive victor either way, especially when you add in battlefield factors like weather, ground, fog of war, and so on.

 

[KiraAnn]

One thing I noted in this discussion: What do you consider the Renaissance period to be?

For me, anything after mid-16th century is post-Renaissance, so any comparisons with Napoleonic units or those of Gustavus Adolphus or Elizabeth I are out of place.

 

[sciwriterPark]

If it late Renaissance, good quality gunpowder seemed plentiful - I believe gunpowder weapons start to become common around 1350, go forward a hundred and fifty years plus (possibly where OP is placing Renaissance) and you have army units that rely on having arquebus in very large numbers. You can only have that if there is a lot of powder.

Disagree with the armour - I think 1400-1500 was 'peak armour': essentially you have fully encased knights and high quality plate steel. Other soldiers wouldn't be fully dressed in metal, but a steel breast plate takes the place of a large shield - something the Romans would be struggling to carry about in battle. The traditional Roman tactic of stabbing with swords ain't going to do much - blunt weapons to paralyse then fit knives between armour plates seemed to be the order of the day.

I think the comparison with the Macedonians is slightly wrong. Pike and shot was organised and disciplined just as well as the Roman manipular system - at least in theory for both sides (sometimes the Romans i.e. Cannae just rushed the enemy with masses of men and expected them to crumble to shear numbers. No subtle use of individual maniples on flanks, or taking advantage of opportunities.) Even if you ran out of gunpowder, you still had the modular approach of pike and sword/buckler units that could position themselves to maximise defence or offence.

-Numbers. Difficult thing to really compare. If two Roman legions plus auxiliaries turned up - a standard consular army in the Republic - what's that 20,000 men? You're not going to battle with them with a couple of thousand men, you'd build up an army to compete with them. The Imperial Spanish army in our period had something like 47 military units - tercios had about 3000 men, but not all were full tercios, so they probably had 100,000 on call. Add the French, Austrian, English and other nations and I think you could easily compete with peak Roman forces of ~250,000 for the whole empire.

Stirrups - depends on the nature of the encounter. I mean if the Roman army is routed and wiped out, and no more comes along in the time portal - no amount of learning is going to help it . If it was some strange 'Empire vs Empire' sort of encounter, sure the Romans might learn - if they captured steel works and gunpowder factories. But it works the other way too - Renaissance armies would learn how the Romans behave and change their tactics also.

War Elephants. Phah! More likely to destroy the army using them than the deployed against. Cannons would easily stop them. Leave the poor animals alone and stop using them in battle!

Many Roman soldiers carried the pugio for close-in fighting to stab and grapple and people generally know to stab into weak points between the armor. I was also wondering if the Roman legion is actually more maneuverable on the battlefield whereas the Renaissance armies weren't as mobile. I think that the Roman cohorts could outflank renaissance infantry. The Romans would also have cavalry and missile auxiliary troops in a legion. I seem to recall that after the meddle ages military thinkers looked back in history because infantry became more important.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Many Roman soldiers carried the pugio for close-in fighting to stab and grapple and people generally know to stab into weak points between the armor. I was also wondering if the Roman legion is actually more maneuverable on the battlefield whereas the Renaissance armies weren't as mobile. I think that the Roman cohorts could outflank renaissance infantry. The Romans would also have cavalry and missile auxiliary troops in a legion. I seem to recall that after the meddle ages military thinkers looked back in history because infantry became more important.

Yes they did have cavalry in a consular army - I say/hint that somewhere above. But it would be poor quality. It was poor quality at the time (if we are talking about Republic-era consular armies. Which is where I assume we are all thinking.) Renaissance cavalry would wipe the floor of any roman cav, run over any weak auxiliaries then leave the heavy roman infantry stranded.

Would be my guess.

 

[sciwriterPark]

I think you are right but the quality of troops would be also a major factor. If you pit poor quality Renaissance troops against veteran a Roman legion, I would favor the Romans.

I guess as far as cav goes I think it depends on how each used the units, charging home is not the way Romans would used them against their enemy.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Generally speaking, the later the army the more the advantage. Superior weaponry, tactics and armour. Having said that, tactics, armour and weaponry of the day would reflect on the tactics, armour and weaponry of the opposition.


However morale and command will have a major bearing on the outcome. All being equal, I wouldn't give much for the chances of a Roman army facing an enemy with more modern guns, cannon, armoury and cavalry. However the Romans would likely be much more adept at fortifications and living off the land and able to adapt to the enemies tactics more quickly. In a longer campaign the Romans may have the edge.

 

[Astro Pen]

Don't forget:
The Renaissance have Da Vinci tanks

 

[hitmouse]

This is an interesting line of thought.

By extension, how would a Roman army have fared against Agincourt-era English longbowmen?

 

[paranoid marvin]

This is an interesting line of thought.

By extension, how would a Roman army have fared against Agincourt-era English longbowmen?

Well to start off with the Romans wouldn't have come charging across a boggy field towards the English army. But I'm not sure how they could have advanced across such terrain without being shot to pieces. The testudo combined with Roman army would have had some effect, but the physical strength of the archers, their warbows and she sheer number of armour-piercing arrows they could unleash would likely have led to the legionaries having a very bad day indeed.

 

[sciwriterPark]

Also, I think its worth mentioning that the Imperial Roman army at it height would have been very well trained and lead by professional soldiers with good logistical support. They would have been able to out maneuver most other armies that were armed with comparable weapons and defeat them. I don't think a disciplined Roman army would have had too much difficulty with longbows. Just my opinion.

 

[svalbard]

I am currently writing a fantasy novel in which, thanks to magic, an army of generic Imperial "Romans" suddenly faces off against an equally-sized army of generic "Renaissance soldiers". This is in a secondary world, so I'm happy to treat both as stereotypes and fudge the details, even though in reality both sides would have varied hugely during the relevant periods. It's pretty silly, but interesting: how well would superior Roman discipline fare against a unit of mercenary handgunners? Could a big shield fend off a pike?

I've come to my own conclusions as to who wins (I reckon you could rig the story either way without it becoming outrageously unfeasible), but I'm just wondering whether I've missed some obvious factor in the battle.

A bit outside your timelines Arther Ferrill in The Origins of War postulated that Alexander the Great's army could have won at Waterloo. Gunpowder was obviously the the major issue, however he balances this out with a number of points.

1. Alexander was a more daring and direct general than Napoleon. Therefore there would have been no delays at Waterloo as per some of Napolean's indecision on the day.

2. The French got with 20ft of the British line. No reason to believe that the phalanx would not have as well.

3. With armour and a forest of pikes once the Greeks closed with the British line them it would have been chaos.

He has a more detailed explanation and it sort of makes sense.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Was just reading that the Roman Empire routinely had around 28-30 legions at any one time. Which reminded that the numbers involved in warfare during the ancient period were far larger than during Europe's mediaeval period. So a direct confrontation between a Roman army and Renaissance army would see the Romans far outnumber the opposition, if weighted for that. Could be interesting.

 

[BAYLOR]

Both Roman and Renaissance are too vague. Specifiy a century. And, for the Renaissance side, specify the army.

As others have noted, there were huge changes over the course of, say, 1400 to 1700. The biggest for your consideration is the advent of field artillery. You can't presume pikes, nor muskets. It was all just too much in flux. Folks have already spoken to the variations on the Roman side.

In short, you can choose a persuasive victor either way, especially when you add in battlefield factors like weather, ground, fog of war, and so on.

For dates
The Roman Empire ot Trajan 98 to 117
The Renaissance of say 1500

 

[Toby Frost]

How good was a massive two-handed weapon like a Dacian falx against a Roman shield? I wonder if Renaissance zweihander swords might be useful close up.

Given that there's going to be some close-quarter street fighting as well, I think the Renaissance people will be inventing the hand grenade and chain shot a little early.

 

[Montero]

Speaking as a epee fencer, who has also played at modern sabre against proper sabreurs, if you have someone swinging a big sword, if you are fast, and good at point work, you can time it to lunge in when they are wide open, either having gone back for the swing, or just after the swing came down, and your point by-passes their edge. But if you get it wrong your weapon, or even you, would be sliced in two.

Though it is satisfying to go straight though a load of whirly blade work that your opponent thinks is impressive.

 

[sknox]

For dates
The Roman Empire ot Trajan 98 to 117
The Renaissance of say 1500

I still hold to my previous statement: you can construct the encounter in such a way to make either a convincing winner. Armies in 1500 were not all the same. Are we talking Scots? Sicilians? Swiss? Other places that start with "S"? <g>

The condition of the troops, the quality of the commanders, the field of battle, weather, the size of the forces, and a score of other variables all factor in. Perhaps it would help to state the contrary: there is no believable portrayal that would have the Romans always winning or the Renaissance-era army always winning.