Talking today with a Roman reenactor friend, we thought of an imaginary Battle of Hastings: 7000-8000 Norman troops versus… 7000-8000 Roman legionaries, a legion plus a few cohorts, Late Republic or Early Empire.

We both agreed that, if led by a good commander like Caesar or Marius, the legionaries would have sent Duke William back to Normandy with a bloody nose.

The legionaries, being so disciplined, would have never fallen prey to feint retreat tactics, like the fyrd did.

My main doubt is how the gladius would have fared against the much better quality 11th century blades.

What do you think?

If I am not mistaken Harold had to ride from the north with his gaurd to make it as well using local frydsmen. Likely the normans would have taken quite a few places by the time a foot army could reach them.

Interesting idea but do not underestimate Williams generalship. Basically took over all northern France and forced the French king to peace all by military might and planning. William at his time was a brilliant military leader. Also that normans employed bowmen, infantry and other soldiers, possibly crossbowmen so its not just an infantry verse cavalry battle.

RPM

calvary would have been an issue too. the Normans actually used the horses they rode on. while say the A&S rode them to battle and then dismounted. that being said the Romans used calvary as well. hmmmmmmmmm

No Doubt the Normans Cav. would own in a fight agaisnt the Roman Cav. and seeing that the cavarly has fled and the legionaries stranded on top of a hill the Normans maybe would have sorruonded them that is maybe if they had more troops anyway if the Normans did surround them the legainares would have made an attempt to break out wich is likely to succeed and in a organised retreat flee thus forfeiting to battle to the Normans.OR with the Roman Cav. gone and the Normans attacking them with a charge from the Romans would have countercharge against the Inf. or Cav. doesn't matter with the speed gathering and counter charging down the hill at the charging Normans the Legions would have the advantage of a somewhat Cav. Charge(would have given my dog to see that battle) and narrowly won the battle...Narrowly that is.Both would have been given opprotunitys the seize the day it all depends if there leaders see that opportunity if they do then they win if they don't then all hell breaks loose and....they lose!but i vote for the Normans cause if they didn't win then history would blow up but thats after the battle.....fin

The Romans would win.

Romans would probably win. Even Saxons lost very narrowly.

Although native Roman cavalry was generally poorly regarded, a Legion usually had a large amount of allied troops which provided very skilled cavalry

... been irrelevant, when I manage to finish my rambling.

Jst wanted to point out a few thing - the Normans were not Horse archer Parthian, so Parthian tactics not have been overly effective.

Secondly, if we are speaking of the classical Roman army, they were a far beeter force than the Roman army of 378 at Adrianople.

Laslty, the Roman legionairres from classical times all wore armour, while not many more than the Huscarls wore metal armour on the Saxon side. The archery would have had even less of an effect against the Romans.

I'd give the Normans superiority in Cavalry for certain, though a smart would have used has cavalry smartly, either to repel the archer ranks (then withdraw back to safety), or in flanking manuvers, and not waste them in a head on assault vs Norman cavalry.

William was smart enough not to keep his cavalry slugging it out head to head vs a strong Saxon Shield wall - I'd give the Roman general some credit too.

And I do believe William should not be underestimated as a leader.

Still I think I would have to go with the Romans in this one, though the Roman general would love to have a contingent of Saxon Huscalrs I'm sure!

I usually don't get into things like this, but lemme get this straight: You're going to let the Romans have the high ground with open terrain in front of them, excellent flank protection, normal auxiliary support, and *equal numbers*--and some people still think the Normans have a prayer?? I think William's only hope of survival is to run like hell for the boats!

Yes, the Saxons were good. The Housecarls were arguably the finest infantry west of Constantinople, and even the fyrd had a warrior tradition going back many centuries.

Yes, the Normans were good, too! William was an excellent commander and he had a well-balanced force composed mainly of professionals.

BUT---don't underestimate Roman cavalry. They were as well-armored as the Normans (mail, large shields, helmets), and they used the same kinds of spears and javelins. Cavalry was always a substantial part of any typical Roman army: half of all known auxiliary units were cavalry, and half of all auxiliary *infantry* units were actually mixed infantry and cavalry. So I'd expect those Romans at Hastings to have a good 2000 cavalry. We like to think of the Norman army as being one-third cavalry, but is there any evidence to back that up? My guess would be much less than that, even though cavalry was always considered the most important element. And remember, the Romans have the high ground!

Even assuming the Normans are equal to or better than the Roman cavalry, you still have Roman infantry to deal with. Legionaries and auxiliaries who are *used* to fighting outnumbered. Who have no qualms of attacking a cavalry force. And most importantly, who are trained to fight as a cohesive force, with an excellent system of communications right down to the company level. Any retreat by part of the Norman army, real or feined, could easily have been followed up by a coordinated and well-supported assault which had every chance of driving the Normans right off the field. The entire Roman army was geared for a moment like that, and their troops champed at the bit to be let loose to attack. Five thousand bloodthirsty highly-trained armored killers raining pila into horses and unarmored infantry, surging forward in a single movement like some lawnmower from hell. Downhill? Gravy. Poor Normans...

I think Britain would STILL be Roman territory!

Valete!

Matthew/Quintus/Aelfric/etc.

PS: For what it's worth, if you had the Romans attacking the Saxons, I *still* think they'd win!

I think you bring up a few good points, Matthew, The Roman infantry would likley have either stayed in formation or perhaps even purued better in good order vs. Fleeing cavalry.

The cavaly thing though I'm not sure about. First of all, the biggest thing as the stirrup issue. The debate rages on about how effective stirrups actually made cavalry, so I think it's hard to say where this puts them. But I would think it would give the Normans a bit of an advantage at least. Secondly, the Normans were armoured a bit better than classical Roman cavalry, and for point of reference I'm looking at the 1st century AD or so Roman Army, not the Trajan model.

The other issue is from what I know, the Romans would be closer to 700-1400 cavalry for an army of 7000, if holding true to their common distributions in the Classical age.

The biggest question I have is how the Romans would have fared against heavy cavalry. Sure, good discipline and armour for most helps, but javelins and shortsword are hardly the ideal weapons with which to repel cavalry.

They would not have presented quite the initial obstacle on initial contact as a Saxon shield wall with 2 handed axe and spear armed troops - these weapons are better against cavalry. But if they keep morale and formation, once the initial cavalry push subsides, they should be able to begin winning as superior numbers come into play. But once again their weapons are not the best suited for the task. They were designed more for combatting infantry, their usual opponent.

.....ddaaammmmm thats some good points ya,ll put out there But you all failed to see the point that Wills army actually fled once (for real)and then seeinghis oppritunity did it again(feint retreat) i bet if would have workd out the same way because who wouldnt go after a foold that tried to kill you and your freinds i would go after them if i knew they were going to die under my blade or javelin......other than that the normans again would have sorrounded the enemy after taking care of the Roman Cav. but more out of range of archers and javelins until they run out of munition and just wait for either a reinforcement for the Romans or for a counter-attack down the hill.

I have a book about Roman History,War,Goverment,and Economic.In the war Section and the sub section it is sad that the Romans rarely used cavarly in charges and attack they mainly used them for mobile skirmishers and was one of the most used Auxillery troops(if they could afford the horses).Also since the Roman Legionaries could use Javelins they undoubtly use it against the Cav.Charge they probaly aim for the man on the horse more effective since the horse would probaly stop and there would be less an attack instead of low armored Infantry and then when the horse would near them would pretty much cut up the legs since then the horse would be wounded and imobile thus leaving the attacker on the Horse exposed to ground forces.Plus since there is no doubt that the Romans could use the sheild wall and also the Romans would probaly use the auxillery troops to attack the Normans while they where retreating back down the hil.

James,

I am not sure I think the Normans were actually retreating. I have a feeling it was indeed a plan to break an otherwise impossible impass. William knew charging uphill against the shield wall would bring a low rate of success. Hence new tactic.

Even if the Roman were armoured it would seem unlikely in most ages that the average soldier would be completely covered. That said the large shields and many formations would more than compensate I suppose but depending on how they were employed would open them to danger. That said my guess is the average norman, french, breton infantryman was not nearly as well armed as the roman legionary, maybe a helmet, shield and spear.

The romans have a great victory record, especially in the long term but have a fairly large (and long) list of failures as well. Very few cultures had heavy horse of the same quality and equipment in the numbers William did. It is hard to know how many William had at hand as Chronicles exaggerate but the English sources all point to it being very large, almost as if they were unused to seeing usch numbers mounted. The likely reason is that they were. They of course had some mounted men, Edward the Confessor improved this by adding Normans even. I still think that unless you had a somewhat unusual roman force the cavalry would be in Williams favor. If he could pull off engaging their cavalry first I think he'd still have a time breaking the ranks of legionaries but I think it was still possible with his reputation for strategy, combined infantry, archery and cavalry.

That said in the end the romans would have a general and depending who it was it'd likely put William to a corner. Some of the best tacticians I can think of were romans, even into their twilight they get Aetius and others who with seemingly small forces do amazing things.

RPM