[Gene Green]

Thinking of classical (Helenistic, Roman) European army vs a pre-gunpowder Medieval army, say XIIIc. Would there be any major technological advantages to the more "modern" force after 1,200 - 1,600 years ? My guess would be a slight advantage in metalworking and perhaps siege machinery technology for a medieval army would be more than offset by a better level of training and discipline of a typical Classical force (at least seems that way from what I read), with arms and armor being basically on the same level (i.e. not like a machine gun vs a musket).

[Mart Shearer]

The stirrup.

[Gene Green]

[Matt Lentzner]

An oldie but a goodie.

Medieval Advantages:
- Larger horses
- Mounted Shock Tactics
- Reinforced Mail/Plate Armor
- Better Metallurgy meaning higher quality weapons and armor
- Polearms
- Crossbows

My opinion of course, but the Romans would get eaten alive by Medieval Cavalry. Their own cavalry would be swept from the field easily. Once that happens then the Medieval infantry can fall on a flank. That seems to me how most battles end. Once the cavalry attacks a flank or the rear, it's over.

Frontally, the Romans don't really have any way to turn a frontal charge. A gladius isn't going to be effective against a mounted knight.

Now, the Romans could field much larger armies so if it's army vs. army then the fight might be even. Man for man, as formidable as the Romans were, they would be outmatched. It's not quite musket vs machinegun, but they are at a significant tactical disadvantage.

I am assuming High or Late Middle Ages. Dark age forced would probably not fare well against Imperial Romans, having pretty much the same weapons and tactics, but without the training and morale.

[Theo Squires]

I think pikes and pike formations would be a significant. Classical cavalry would destroyed if they ran into a Swiss pike square, for instance. I also wouldn't underestimate knights; compared to classical cavalry, knights were far better protected and, as they were professional soldiers, highly skilled. For the rank-and-file there would have been less discipline and morale, as the classical armies were professional and the medieval ones less so.

[Tom King]

[Neil Melville]

Theo, you seem to be forgetting the Hellenistic pike phalanx - the Macedonian sarissa was what the Swiss based their pike on, same sort of length, and their block formation was based on the same principle. Then the pike phalanx was defeated by the Roman maniple formation in several battles from Pydna, 168 BC, on.
Neil

[Philip Dyer]

Guys, it seems like all of you are discounting the fact the Roman were only able to expand as far as they did because there soldiers were expert engineers, and that Medieval military carried the idea that sieges and skirmishes were preferable
to huge battles to decide campaigns. Also, are we assuming high Roman Empire? Roman Republic? He specified Medieval armies in the Middle of the Crusading period but he didn't specific the Roman army era.

[Gene Green]

Well, let's say Macedonian phalanx, properly used (I.e. with cavalry and supporting light troops). Did they ever encounter the equivalent of heavy knightly cavalry ?

It seems to me that knightly forces were often poorly led, undisciplined, and with piss poor coordination between units. So a determined well trained well equipped pike formation with some support units could be at least an equally strong force. Definitely the Mongols proved that the crouched lance is no match for better unit cohesiveness, better signal system, and better leadership.

Also, didn't the English knights often prefer to dismount and fight as infantry ? Or was this at a later period ?

[Philip Dyer]

[P. Schontzler]

[Jaroslav Kravcak]

My own view is, that despite much hiss about romans, they could be taken as one of the most advanced militaries available to their commanders at their respective time, but that doesnt mean they were the best army this world could offer before 17th/18th century. Even in their own times I see them outclasses by phalanx-cavalry combination of Macedonians in its ideal condition. Parthian combination of horse archers and cataphracts also seem like able to at least deliver a stalemate in battle in terrain and situation, that wouldnt favour the romans.

As far as later eras go, macedonian combined arms army would have roughly similar components to complete rennaisance army, they might match them in discipline and spirit, but otherwise, they look like being outclassed in any area. As for romans, no army similarly armed and trained was put to greater use during this period (Machiavellis fantasy excluded), I believe for a good reason, because it would be ineffective in context of the era. This might go for late middle ages as well, but to much lesser extent.

As for earlier periods, my own view is, there is no clear cut winner, at least I dont think romans/macedonians would be superior to contemporary medieval armies right away without question.

As for phalanx vs knightly heavy cavalry, only partian cataphracts come to my mind, they took over large part of territory previously under Seleucid control (I hope Im not mixing things together ), but I dont know of any actual battle, it almost seems like they got their without much fighting. On the other hand, only battle of Parthia vs western powers ever described in any detail in popupar literature is Carrhae, I can name Nibisis as other more or less partian victory and victories of Ventidius Bassus on roman side. There seem to be little interest in partian version of the story, there might be much more information to get, more battles and more particular information about how parthians themselves viewed their cataphracts, how they used them and trained them. There is an example of legion vs Seleucid cataphracts at Magnesia, where they most propably defeated part of roman infantry line, its often downplayed as impropable (or something similar), I havent seen any clear cut description of what exactly happened, certainly nothing that would absolutely favour the downplayed version of them doing basically zero damage.
So (my) unanswered questions are: How much is to be learned from Partian sources of history, how much place do they get in version of history known to broad public in the west?
How much is there to be known about realities of this partian heavy cavalry, or its iminations, their use, training and how they wre viewed by their own users, rather than casual enemy observers? How would such a rider had viewed himself?
How much is basic view of ancient warfare of western academia biased and conjured of speculations, how much of hard evidence?

[Matthew Amt]

[Dan Howard]

It is impossible to answer this question because equipment is largely irrelevant in most victories. Armies win because of superior training, morale, position, logistics, the commander's skill, etc. The great advantage the Romans had was their "system". They suffered many defeats but they ALWAYS came back - they could always raise one more army and each one would be larger than a medieval army. They also had an uncanny ability to produce just the right commander at just the right time.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Quinn W.]

Dan made an excellent point. The main advantage of the Romans was their ability to absorb defeat after defeat without it crippling the empire. So at the end of the day even if I would give the advantage to a medieval force in general, I don't see them faring well in the long run. No medieval kingdom had anywhere near the resources to match the Roman's industrial-scale warfare.
I would say the superior armor and at elast equal training of a mounted knight would be a big factor in favor of a medieval force but that wasn't the whole army so that only goes so far. In this case the knight beats the heavy Roman infantry in terms of armor, combines that with the versatility and mobility of Roman cavalry, and is at least their equal in terms of hours of overall training and experience. But they were also a minority on the field so whether they could take that small advantage and make it turn the tide of a battle very much depends on how effectively it is utilized. So luck once again takes the day.
If we're talking later middle ages, the English longbow could also be something the Romans could have a hard time reacting to. I haven't seen that mentioned yet. The Romans seemed to use both their archers and their cavalry as harassing froces to suppllement the infantry, but in medieval armies one or both of these were frequently their greatest strengths.
That being said, the Roman's strong suit was set-piece battles, whereas that tended to be avoided in Medieval warfare so the situation would very much affect which side was "in their element."

[Theo Squires]

Many good points have been raised. Personally, i wouldn't write-off the discipline, organisation, training etc. of the medieval army. Take, for example, the First Crusade. Obviously, I refer to the Princes Crusade. A relatively small army march from Western Europe to the Holy Land and northern Egypt, whereupon they decisively defeat a far more numerous opponent. Facing terrible conditions (heat, attrition etc.) in hostile territory, they win several sieges and land battles over the course of four/five years of campaigning far from home. That takes good leadership, organisation, resolve etc. While many counterpoints can be made in regards to the fractious enemy etc. the First Crusade is, in my opinion, an excellent example of what the medieval Europeans could achieve militarily.

Of course, the Romans had many outstanding successes and its indisputable that the Romans were very professional, disciplined and had an excellent military system. My point is that it shouldn't be taken for granted that the medieval Europeans were an ill-disciplined rabble of peasants in contrast to the Übermenschen Romans. There are many examples of good leadership, good organisation and good tactics for both Classical armies and medieval armies.

[Luka Borscak]

Roman victory over Macedonians happened because of the decline of Alexander's combined arms system and putting too much confidence in phalanxes. I think many Roman victories can be attributed to the fact their opponents just weren't very good. Personal bravery and skill doesn't matter that much, Celts, Germans, Ilyrians, they were all good warriors, but their tactics, equipment and the general way of making war were on much lower level than Roman. We all know how problematic were well organized and led armies with combined arms systems like Hannibal's and Pyrus'. Also Parthians with their simple combination of horse archers and shock cavalry. And even Celts and Germans managed to defeat Romans many times.
I'm not uunderestimatingRomans, but they knew their war machine is superior to their nneighborsand when they met someone equal to them, they fought hard and bitter wars and if they won, they won because of superior resources, both man resources and material wealth.
A rash charge of medieval knights like English charge at Falkirk or Bannockburn would probably be defeated by Romans, but a clever combined arms system like Richard I's combination of crossbowmen protected by infantry and well timed knightly charges would probably defeat Romans unless there would be a big disproportion in numbers or terrain would favor the Romans greatly.

[Dan Howard]

[Luka Borscak]