Medieval England (House Of Lancaster) vs Rome?

[ArlEammon]

England, 1312
Scenarios:

England has mysteriously been transported to the Era of the Roman Empire. Curious as to what has happened to so many disappearing tax payers, and why the place is now crawling with citizens from another country speaking a strange language, a delegation is sent to Britain asking exactly what exactly has happened. Sadly, negotiations don't work very well, and hostilities open up when the diplomat from Rome is de-tongued, then drawn and qaurtered.

War, of course, inevitably ensues.

Or. . .

We have the same scenario as above, minus the diplomatic mishap. Assuming England has a long time to prepare for war, or that war doesn't necessarily explode immediately after contact with Rome, what happens?

[Janus]

I don't know much about the military tactics and whatnot, but I'll throw in that the Roman gladius wouldn't have worked too well against the Lancasters' armor. Nova had a video about Viking swords, and they had a demonstration of a Roman sword against chainmail. You need a more tapered blade to pierce it.


...yeah, that's about all I got.

[Spiryt]

Well, I was pretty sure that in 1312 there was no real House of Lancaster to speak of yet?

"Empire Rome" covers huge period of time as well.



I don't know much about the military tactics and whatnot, but I'll throw in that the Roman gladius wouldn't have worked too well against the Lancasters' armor. Nova had a video about Viking swords, and they had a demonstration of a Roman sword against chainmail. You need a more tapered blade to pierce it.
.

Mail was about most popular armor in Roman legions as well though, so it's not exactly like they would be unfamiliar with it.

Also, what's Nova?

[Flickerdart]

The Roman Empire lasted from (depending on who you ask) 44 BC or earlier to (again, depending on who you ask) 476, 1453 (Eastern Roman Empire) or even 1806 (Holy Roman Empire). Assuming that we don't care about the adjectivized Roman Empires, that still leaves a 500 year period with very different troops and technologies.

[Janus]

Mail was about most popular armor in Roman legions as well though, so it's not exactly like they would be unfamiliar with it.
Good point. I was thinking they'd probably go for spears or something more piercy against chainmail.

Also, what's Nova?
It's a science/history program thing here in the US. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/secrets-viking-sword.html
Guess I should have explained that in my post. Hooray, ethnocentrism! :smallbiggrin:

EDIT
Looking at the transcript, the test was a Roman gladius versus Viking era chainmail. It had more to do with demonstrating weapon shapes than anything else, though.

EDIT 2
Here's the documentary itself- http://video.pbs.org/video/2284159044/
My favorite part's at the beginning when John Clements (Association of Renaissance Martial Arts) says that the Japanese katana has been "exaggerated." :smallbiggrin:

[Spiryt]

Good point. I was thinking they'd probably go for spears or something more piercy against chainmail.

Vast majority of combatants wouldn't be armored from head to toe on Medieval battlefield.

On Ancient Mediterranean, almost none.

So it probably usually wasn't the best choice to try go trough at all cost.



It's a science/history program thing here in the US. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/secrets-viking-sword.html
Guess I should have explained that in my post. Hooray, ethnocentrism! :smallbiggrin:

Can't watch from here. Is the test any good?

They're usually rather terrible in TV.

[Janus]

Can't watch from here. Is the test any good?

They're usually rather terrible in TV.
From what I remember, it was. The man test cutting was John Clements, founder of ARMA (http://thearma.org/), and he was striking/stabbing a mannequin in Viking style chain with padded cloth underneath.
Basically he was showing the differences in sword shapes. The gladius he used had a rounded tip (which he commented is good for horseback), but the Viking sword he used (which the documentary was all about) was more tapered and able to break a few ringlets and pierce the rubber "flesh" of the mannequin.

Can you see it on YouTube?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXbLyVpWsVM
The chainmail test is at about 32:30.

[Spiryt]

Yeah, looks a bit better than most of the stuff on TV, though the whole 'stabbing' stuff appears to be really secondary here, almost no real data.

Swords appear to be replicated pretty well, although we seem to have only their word, I hope they wouldn't waste time and effort with actual crucible steel for some badly reconstruction.

"Roman" sword is not gladius though, at all, it appears to be something in spatha style.

What I don't like is that they again make poor simplifications - like that "pointed Viking sword" was some kind of new invention to combat mail... There were plenty of Spathas in 2nd century A.D. way more thrusting oriented than pretty much any 9th-10th century sword out there.

http://zweilawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/spatha-lauricum.png

Also, it doesn't appear that there's any explanation about their mail - if it's actual reproduction, or some Indian junk....

[Janus]

"Roman" sword is not gladius though, at all, it appears to be something in spatha style.
Heh, good point. I should keep that in mind.


Also, it doesn't appear that there's any explanation about their mail - if it's actual reproduction, or some Indian junk....
Yeah, I don't know. Clements wrote a lengthy blog post about a National Geographic documentary he took part in (http://www.historicalfencing.com/Talhoffers-Fight-Book-Blog.html), explaining a lot of the behind the scenes stuff, but I can't find anything similar about the Viking documentary.

I could try to find out, if you like. I recently joined ARMA.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Well, we can look at things a few ways:

Technology: England prevails. They've got more advanced blacksmithing, more and better quality steel, and they have better knowledge of more advanced armor types such as platemail. Romans would have to kill and capture a heavily armed knight, and then reverse-engineer the armor and weapons, which would probably take a long time. They could do it, but studying the new technology and then implementing it on a large enough scale would take a long, long time.

Training/Discipline: Rome. As kickass as Medieval Knights and English Longbowmen were, they only make up part of their side's armies. Roman Legionnaires represented most of theirs. Romans worked their guys to death so they could be the meanest, nastiest bunch of thugs in the known world. Knights were disciplined warriors, but they required the longbowmen to back them up, and those guys were routed a number of times during the Hundred Year War, so they're not invincible. And most of the army of the time period was made up of peasants, and Rome was good at slaughtering people like that.

Tactics: This is a bit more difficult because it depends so much on the Tech-aspect. Roman legions used a system where they fought as a brutal, machine-like blender of men on the battlefield. They constantly swapped their lines so no one got exhausted, and they broke their forces into small squadrons of men for easy maneuverability, allowing individual commanders and captains to make decisions on the fly. Medieval English would most likely hit with waves of arrows, followed by a general infantry charge. The Knights would then "win the battle" by flanking. Only, the Romans would have their more expendable Auxiliaries on their flanks, including allied cavalry and spearmen, meaning that the Knights would still have to pass through a gauntlet of spearpoints and enemy cavalry that could slow or overwhelm them with sheer numbers.


That's another thing: Rome could field armies nearing 100,000 men if they absolutely had to. More common was 50,000. So...does anyone know the average size of a medieval army?

Strategy: Rome. In the end, Rome goes to any lengths imaginable in order to win. They reverse-engineer tech, they build mountains and alter the earth's surface. They would blockade the British Isles and commence massive invasions in order to secure a foothold somewhere. They'd probably look for an alliance with even the barbaric Picts and Scotii for some mercenay backup.

Winner: Tie. I honestly don't know. It'd come down to the wire, and there'd be very little left afterward, but I'm not sure who would win.

Did I miss something?

[Renegade Paladin]

Since you mention missing Roman taxpayers, I presume this is supposed to take place during the (relatively short) period when Rome ruled southern Britain. This means we're talking the height of the Empire's military power; Britannia was among the first provinces to be abandoned in the Roman withdrawal.

The short version is that if Vespasian, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, or whoever is emperor at the time wants Britain back, he gets it. How difficult this is depends on the fate of the XXth Legion and whatever other legions were present in Britannia at the time of the switch (the twentieth is the only one known for a certainty to have been in Britain for the entire Roman occupation, but there were certainly others). If organized Roman forces are in England from the outset, the English lose very, very quickly. If not, and if those legions are lost to the Romans entirely, they'll have to raise new ones to adequately hold the Empire while still fighting a war of conquest. If not but those legions appear back in Rome, they're simply sent back. Medieval armies with their peasant levies and independent-minded noblemen are no match for Roman military discipline, and can rarely if ever amass the numbers to meet a legion on the battlefield in equal strength. Assuming Roman determination to retake Britannia, this is only a matter of time.

[Anteros]

There are very, very, few scenarios where a tiny island is going to stand up to the might of the Roman empire. If Rome wants to take Britain, it will. End of story.

[Renegade Paladin]

Incidentally, is this replacing the whole of the isle of Britain, or just England? Rome also held Wales.

[kpenguin]

I think the question is really not "Could the Roman Empire take England if it wanted to" but rather "Would it want to." One does not build a permanent wall across an island if you intend to be taking the other half soon. Would England be worth the prolonged conflict and effort to retake or would the Roman Empire find it more equitable, before after or during military conflict, to not expand there?

[Soras Teva Gee]

I think the question is really not "Could the Roman Empire take England if it wanted to" but rather "Would it want to." One does not build a permanent wall across an island if you intend to be taking the other half soon. Would England be worth the prolonged conflict and effort to retake or would the Roman Empire find it more equitable, before after or during military conflict, to not expand there?

Yeah people always fondly imagine nation states being able to go Total War and throw endless waves of men at any problem.

Rome would do no such thing, or who would be enforcing the Roman order in say Palestine while ALL the legions are off fighting in Britannia? For that matter for their tech level who's to say any particular legion could cross the Empire without loosing a fair part of its strength to the rigors of travel.

The famous Pax Romana existed not because Rome was incapable of expansion but because it was viewed as the smarter policy. Which it quite arguably was. Especially given that there were periodic uprisings to deal with for example.

[ArlEammon]

I think the question is really not "Could the Roman Empire take England if it wanted to" but rather "Would it want to." One does not build a permanent wall across an island if you intend to be taking the other half soon. Would England be worth the prolonged conflict and effort to retake or would the Roman Empire find it more equitable, before after or during military conflict, to not expand there?

Which is only one of only two-three reasons why I posted this. Why would say, Rome, with it's armies want to take a sovereign nation like England during the 1300's when it can fight back? I think it would be crushed in the end, but the English nation was quite experienced with war.

[Flickerdart]

Training/Discipline: Rome. As kickass as Medieval Knights and English Longbowmen were, they only make up part of their side's armies. Roman Legionnaires represented most of theirs.
Rome got its ass kicked by random Visigoths as early as 378. Those legionnaires were gradually swapped out for Germanic mercenaries towards Rome's decline, as well. Which is why it's important to pick a time period for Rome - if we take one of the world's greatest empires at the height of its power against half of an island, that's a lot different than the Western Empire doing it alone.

[Renegade Paladin]

Yeah people always fondly imagine nation states being able to go Total War and throw endless waves of men at any problem.

Rome would do no such thing, or who would be enforcing the Roman order in say Palestine while ALL the legions are off fighting in Britannia? For that matter for their tech level who's to say any particular legion could cross the Empire without loosing a fair part of its strength to the rigors of travel.

The famous Pax Romana existed not because Rome was incapable of expansion but because it was viewed as the smarter policy. Which it quite arguably was. Especially given that there were periodic uprisings to deal with for example.
By no means would ALL of the legions be required to conquer Britain. You vastly overestimate the ability of medieval armies to muster large quantities of men, much less mold them into a disciplined fighting force; it's fair to say that it essentially almost never happened in Europe between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance outside of the Crusades, which mustered the power of several nations at once, something England cannot do here. William the Conqueror defeated and conquered England with less than ten thousand men.

Though whether Rome would want to expend the effort is still an open question; that's why I prefaced everything I said with "if Vespasian, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, or whoever is emperor at the time wants Britain back, he gets it." The Roman Empire at its height (which it was during most of the time it held Britannia) could defeat the House of Lancaster and take England; the only questions are how long it would take (variable depending on factors I mentioned in my first post that the scenario doesn't make clear) and whether they'd bother to do it.

[Anteros]

Yeah people always fondly imagine nation states being able to go Total War and throw endless waves of men at any problem.

Rome would do no such thing, or who would be enforcing the Roman order in say Palestine while ALL the legions are off fighting in Britannia? For that matter for their tech level who's to say any particular legion could cross the Empire without loosing a fair part of its strength to the rigors of travel.

The famous Pax Romana existed not because Rome was incapable of expansion but because it was viewed as the smarter policy. Which it quite arguably was. Especially given that there were periodic uprisings to deal with for example.

So what exactly is the point here? If Rome wants.the island it takes it. If not...not.

[Johel]

In 1312, England is ruled by Edward II.
Which was basically an incompetent and hated ruler, so much that his own wife eventually overthrown him
We are in the middle of a period when England has been plague by scottish rebellions, with Robert Bruce gnawing lands slowly.

The English armies back then were levies, which is more like a large mob of warrior bands than a trained army of soldiers.
They were good enough to keep the peace in the country or to discourage invasions by similar foreign armies.
The English ost of that period could field between 20.000 and 30.000 men.
But they could only be kept mobilized for short periods of the year.

In constrast, at the time of Hadrian, the Roman legions had a systematic process of recruitment and training, with recruits signing up for up to 20 years.
They were standing armies, always available for service, be it peacekeeping, military defense or invasions.
A single legion, with auxiliaries, was around 11.000 men.

What it means is that, while Edward might have gathered an army strong of up to 30.000 men, he would only have been able to keep it for a few months at best.
After this, each baron would have gone back to his own domain.

All it would take for Rome to conquer England back would be to bring 2 legions and march on London.
Basically, one year after the diplomatic incident, the Imperial Navy would drop two legions on the shores of England.
Two weeks later, the army is in London while Edward would still be trying to gather his troops.

The defeat in London won't be a "game over" but it would be enough to broke the moral of the english barons.
If the Romans time their attack to happen in the middle of the harvest season, the English army will be half as strong as it could.
Factor the discipline and coordination into it and you end up with a bunch of ill-prepared warriors being crushed in a field battle.
Before retreating to their castles, hoping that the other army will just give up.

[Wardog]

England has a tech advantage (or at least, the elite knights and heavy infantry have a tech advantage over their Roman equivilents).

But Rome has the better infrastructure, logistics, and numbers. And probably better non-elite troops as well. (Although that depends on to what extent England is using conscripted peasants with pointy sticks - I've read in anumber of places that this wasn't nearly as prevelent as popular opinion tends to believe).

The English knights as elite infantry would probably give the Romans a bit of a shock at first, but if the situation degenerates into total war between a small and relatively insignificant feudal nation, and a superpower spanning half of Europe, North Africa, and much of the Near East, then my money is on the Romans.


However, if this confrontation takes place either in the reign of Edward II (as the original date implies), or during the Wars of the Roses (as the mention of the House of York suggests), then the most likely scenario would probably be:

The Romans approach the most friendly noble or royal and make him the offer "If you accept our Emperor as your overlord, we will make you king of England. (And give you money to fight the Scots/Welsh as well). And if you turn us down, we'll just keep making the same offer to your rivals until one of them agrees".

That is, after all, a large part of how they conquered the rest of their empire.

[Soras Teva Gee]

By no means would ALL of the legions be required to conquer Britain. You vastly overestimate the ability of medieval armies to muster large quantities of men, much less mold them into a disciplined fighting force

I never said a single thing about the British capabilities because I was not addressing that.

[Anteros]

In 1312, England is ruled by Edward II.
Which was basically an incompetent and hated ruler, so much that his own wife eventually overthrown him
We are in the middle of a period when England has been plague by scottish rebellions, with Robert Bruce gnawing lands slowly.

The English armies back then were levies, which is more like a large mob of warrior bands than a trained army of soldiers.
They were good enough to keep the peace in the country or to discourage invasions by similar foreign armies.
The English ost of that period could field between 20.000 and 30.000 men.
But they could only be kept mobilized for short periods of the year.

In constrast, at the time of Hadrian, the Roman legions had a systematic process of recruitment and training, with recruits signing up for up to 20 years.
They were standing armies, always available for service, be it peacekeeping, military defense or invasions.
A single legion, with auxiliaries, was around 11.000 men.

What it means is that, while Edward might have gathered an army strong of up to 30.000 men, he would only have been able to keep it for a few months at best.
After this, each baron would have gone back to his own domain.

All it would take for Rome to conquer England back would be to bring 2 legions and march on London.
Basically, one year after the diplomatic incident, the Imperial Navy would drop two legions on the shores of England.
Two weeks later, the army is in London while Edward would still be trying to gather his troops.

The defeat in London won't be a "game over" but it would be enough to broke the moral of the english barons.
If the Romans time their attack to happen in the middle of the harvest season, the English army will be half as strong as it could.
Factor the discipline and coordination into it and you end up with a bunch of ill-prepared warriors being crushed in a field battle.
Before retreating to their castles, hoping that the other army will just give up.

I honestly don't even think it would take 2 legions. The English army might win some small skirmishes, but without either exceptional tactics, or exceptional luck, I highly doubt they could stand up to even 1 organized Roman legion.

[Renegade Paladin]

I never said a single thing about the British capabilities because I was not addressing that.
You said it would take all the legions to beat them, which says quite a bit about British capabilities.

[Soras Teva Gee]

You said it would take all the legions to beat them, which says quite a bit about British capabilities.

I said that at no point.

I was speaking only in the context of a total war approach and pointing out the how Rome would not be able to just march legions from all around the Empire to put their raw resource base to full advantage. And how in vs threads people have a tendency to ignore the reality of this assuming 100% political support, unity, and resource availability.

Which followed out would mean that England would only have to prove a sufficiently tough enough to crack to make itself not worth the trouble, not beat Rome in turn.

Nothing in there about whether this is the case which would depend on the force availability of both sides and what they could expect to put on the field.

Now actually on that front, well there I could not the nearest point I could find to our year peg of 1312 is the 1314 Battle of Bannockburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bannockburn) with estimated numbers between 13k-25k in an English defeat. Roman legion numbers are around 5,000 legion proper with variable but comparable auxilary numbers, who are a mixed force. In the actual Roman Conquest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_conquest_of_Britain) of Britain Rome deployed about 40k legion+auxilaries. This being 43 AD time wise.

The time peg for England is not the best as Edward II seems a fairly weak king, in 1312 specifically he's almost at war with his barons seeking to undermine his authority. Bannockburn he also lost against the Scots so he's not some undefeated genius either. Yet the high estimate for his army is not unthinkable to achieve victory either. And it wouldn't be unreasonable a completely foreign invader might allow him a higher level of support, with the advantages of tech, local knowledge, and fighting defensively.

The castle in particular is due consideration, though Rome was no stranger to sieges they are something broadly most efficient for the defender. Can Rome afford to starve out castles across England for example, or the losses it would need to take them?

At any rate I'd feel better with England a little later during the Hundred Years War. Edward III commanded over 30k at Calais (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Calais_%281346%29) in 1346 and though lesser in number the combined arms tactics at Crecy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cr%C3%A9cy) in the same year supposed result in 10k English kicking the pants out of 20k French with very light losses. Though Rome can also manage higher numbers then 40k.

[ArlEammon]

At any rate I'd feel better with England a little later during the Hundred Years War. Edward III commanded over 30k at Calais (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Calais_%281346%29) in 1346 and though lesser in number the combined arms tactics at Crecy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cr%C3%A9cy) in the same year supposed result in 10k English kicking the pants out of 20k French with very light losses. Though Rome can also manage higher numbers then 40k.

Yes,I was considering Edward III rather than Edward II, though I had forgoteen when exactly in the 1300's that the former was in charge.

[Spiryt]

Training/Discipline: Rome. As kickass as Medieval Knights and English Longbowmen were, they only make up part of their side's armies. Roman Legionnaires represented most of theirs. Romans worked their guys to death so they could be the meanest, nastiest bunch of thugs in the known world. Knights were disciplined warriors, but they required the longbowmen to back them up, and those guys were routed a number of times during the Hundred Year War, so they're not invincible. And most of the army of the time period was made up of peasants, and Rome was good at slaughtering people like that.


Most of 'peasants' in English army would be bow wielding yeoman though, trained and 'interested' in fighting in their squadrons. If someone didn't absolutely have to, he wasn't really trying to rally actual random peasants, because their battle value would be really low anyway.


y. Medieval English would most likely hit with waves of arrows, followed by a general infantry charge.

Tactics is way to broad question generally...

Due to huge numbers of pure archers in their ranks, they generally preferred not to charge, instead to hold powerful positions to welcome enemy.

See their triumphs against the French.

If forced to advance, they would need some serious coordination, although assuming that they would have some serious knights retinues, they could have mobility and diversity to pull it off.

Depends on troops discipline and cooperation and commanders, hugely.

[Renegade Paladin]

I said that at no point.

I was speaking only in the context of a total war approach and pointing out the how Rome would not be able to just march legions from all around the Empire to put their raw resource base to full advantage. And how in vs threads people have a tendency to ignore the reality of this assuming 100% political support, unity, and resource availability.
Oh. So rather than asserting that it would take all the legions to conquer Britain, you were responding to an imaginary assertion that they would use all the legions. Which no one made. This is called a strawman.

[ArlEammon]

Yes,I was considering Edward III rather than Edward II, though I had forgoteen when exactly in the 1300's that the former was in charge.

So would this scenario change at all if Edward III ruled rather than Edward II?

[Soras Teva Gee]

So would this scenario change at all if Edward III ruled rather than Edward II?

Depends on what you value in the assessment.

A feudal kingdom needs a relatively strong hand to muster forces and then lead them. However the time span is such that anything the son did the father should in theory have much the same resource available.

On the other side of the coin going too far forward and the Edward III will be ruling over an England stricken with the Black Death. A third of the population dead does not speak well for engaging in war. I'm going to guess that's not in consideration and this will be before hand.

Basically boils down to into what the political side of this will come down to. If you allow that England responds in a unified way to foreign aggression then that will have a vastly different result then an England that begins to fray apart as barons either are slow to act together, keep out of things, or start abandoning the king for the emperor's general. And whether the potential tactics open technologically to England can be applied. Edward III was a strong leader and showed he could execute a war pretty well.

And of course the other end depends on what Rome can send, which depends on where in their own history this is. Though it will always be a frontier war on the far side of their economic backbone (the Med) and prosecuted by a general with some investment of forces.

Put together I'd say Edward III should be able to handle say the forty-thousand legion & auxiliaries sent in the historical first century invasion given the numbers he mustered himself, the advantage of defense, and technologies like the English longbow and the castle. Probably even above that.

Poking around you can find Rome committing higher numbers to military operations so becomes a question of how many and how far one thinks England's advantages can hold out and how long before Rome decides its not worth the trouble or the strain causes another more pressing problem within their borders.

[The Glyphstone]

If Pyrrhic victories count, an England currently in the throes of the Black Death might be the best chance they have. You can't defend if you're dying of plague, but attacking people dying of plague tends to be a poor decision.

[Knaight]

Technology: England prevails. They've got more advanced blacksmithing, more and better quality steel, and they have better knowledge of more advanced armor types such as platemail. Romans would have to kill and capture a heavily armed knight, and then reverse-engineer the armor and weapons, which would probably take a long time. They could do it, but studying the new technology and then implementing it on a large enough scale would take a long, long time.

They also have shock cavalry, with the developments in horse breeding, saddles, stirrups, etc. that is implied. Moreover, there's the matter of naval technological supremacy, on top of all that. When it comes to pure technology, their advantage is huge. It also persists down through various layers of technology - by 1300, waterpower was heavily harnessed, as was wind. Early mechanization was standard, and behind it were the other developments of the agricultural revolution. Granted, England has less in the way of some of these things than a lot of other places, particularly as concerns the shock cavalry, but they are still an important factor.

The thing is, when it comes to the population sizes controlled by a given empire, Rome generally has the advantage. There are a few periods, particularly prior to the transition away from being a city state where that is most emphatically not the case, but if we are talking about the Rome that already colonized Britain, but hasn't been forced to give it up yet? It's a different story entirely.

[Don Julio Anejo]

For the sake of an argument, I will consider the Roman empire during the Pax Romana. For one, this is the period most people think when they mean "Roman Empire." For two, much later introduces significant confounds such as Christianity, presence of nomads as auxilliaries, dropping quality of Roman troops, etc. Ironically, I think later Roman Empire (i.e. around Constantine's time) would have a better chance of unifying with England through mostly peaceful terms.

Logistics: sorry, Rome wins despite the significant distances involved. England could as noted, muster maybe 30-40,000 people. Being able to muster them and keep as an army is likely not a problem. Invasion will succeed without issue - while Europeans had access to Carracks that would sail circles around any Roman long-range ships, England had very little in the way of a navy before 1500's.

That said, the entirety of England will only be pit against a Roman expeditionary force, not the entire army - at any given point, Parthia will be a much larger threat, especially if England makes no move to cross the channel.

Social factors: Roman "heathens" at their doorstep will likely be a very strong unifying factor for the English, especially with the memory of Richard III and crusades still present in everyone's minds, even if only in legends. Poorest peasants might see themselves better off under Roman law, but they're the group most easily riled through propaganda and Roman didn't practice information warfare much anyway. Heck, the sudden presence of a strong Christian state might instead serve to destabilize the Empire itself. Some nobles, however, might like Rome for the simple reason that slavery is legal. After all, it's so much easier to get rich if you don't have to give your workers anything beyond basic sustenance and so they might be swayed toward Rome.

Tactics: here's where it gets interesting. On the one hand, knights are a gamebreaker: Romans faced absolutely nothing similar and won't for a few more hundred years. Parthians don't come anywhere near, the Cataphracts and Clibinarii, while good in a charge (instead of stirrups, they fixed spears to saddles to maintain momentum), are significantly less mobile and don't have the right equipment for a prolonged melee (both lack of mettalurgical know-how to make proper broadswords, and no stirrups means you can't put as much weight into a downward swing). And just as well, since any legions with experience fighting heavy cavalry would be on the other end of the empire.

On the other, English lack proper heavy/shock infantry. They have lots of archers, true, but no-one to actually hold the line, which makes it difficult to flank with your cavalry. Most of melee infantry of this period were billmen or the like; soldiers designed to fight enemy cavalry (since French and their knights were considered the main opponent). Knights, while good one-on-one on foot (useful in places like defending a castle), wouldn't stand up well to legionnaires since they weren't trained (much) to fight in formation and were more a lightly organized mob. There also aren't many of them.

Archers are meh. They die as soon as they make contact with legionnaires (they are still lightly armed medium infantry without shields), and English might not expect testudo, which would let Romans close the gap without heavy losses. But invaluable if something is there to protect them. Not certain if the longbow would be able to go through the scutii - everything I've read puts longbows in the same range for draw strength as generic recurve bows like those used by contemporary nomads (Turks, Mongols).

[ArlEammon]

Archers are meh. They die as soon as they make contact with legionnaires (they are still lightly armed medium infantry without shields), and English might not expect testudo, which would let Romans close the gap without heavy losses. But invaluable if something is there to protect them. Not certain if the longbow would be able to go through the scutii - everything I've read puts longbows in the same range for draw strength as generic recurve bows like those used by contemporary nomads (Turks, Mongols).

English Longbows were strong enough to go through two inches of English oak.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Archers are meh. They die as soon as they make contact with legionnaires (they are still lightly armed medium infantry without shields), and English might not expect testudo, which would let Romans close the gap without heavy losses. But invaluable if something is there to protect them. Not certain if the longbow would be able to go through the scutii - everything I've read puts longbows in the same range for draw strength as generic recurve bows like those used by contemporary nomads (Turks, Mongols).

Archers are not meh. Archers are gamechangers.

You want to know the power of the longbow? Take a standard wooden hunting arrow. Now double its weight. A longbow made for the purpose of war (which is actually a different type of bow than the target shooters) can shoot that faster than the average wood (or solid fiberglass, or maybe even fiberglass laminates) hunting weight bow can shoot the hunting arrow. Granted, war longbows tend to draw at least double the weight of hunting bows, but still.

And never, EVER call the horn/wood/sinew masterpieces (which when made from scratch and with the period-appropriate tools, took about four years to make) of the nomads of the steppes "generic recurves". When the horse nomads went to war, they used bows of sixty to eighty pounds, and at those weights, the increased mass no longer fully evened out the increased power storage - in other words, war weight composite bows hit harder than equal-weight longbows. But the English didn't use bows of that weight. Eighty to a hundred and twenty pounds was common for draw weights, and the strongest archers used bows of one hundred and fifty pounds. Their arrows had armor-piercing tips that could go through plate.

When medieval archers held contests, the targets were made out of solid hardwood. That alone says something about the strength of the archers and their bows.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Just redid research (granted, haven't used actual sources, mostly wikipedia and whatever it links to, but still) - > longbows are in the 90-110-lb range at the upper limit (80-90 likely) and high-end recurve bows are 80-90 lb on the lower end and 150 lb on the high end of the scale. Main advantage of the longbow is that it's comparatively cheap to make and doesn't come fall apart in the rain.

That said, reason archers are meh is that they're hard to use tactically. They need a specific deployment where they can shoot straight, while at the same time they're protected from enemy forces. Oh, they will eat through pretty much any auxiliaries like a piranha through an unlucky boater, but will they beat legionnaires after the latter close the distance? Crecy and Agincourt are very specific circumstances that heavily favoured archers, where rain made a cavalry charge impossible and they were dug into their positions. And even then, at Agincourt, they actually did more damage in the ensuing hand to hand than with their arrows.

As soon as archers have to shoot in an arc, their power lowers significantly Even assuming they can hit a formation (easy with large disorganized medieval mobs, difficult with compact Roman testudos advancing in checkerboard), and I'm assuming they can, simple physics makes that all of the arrows' kinetic energy comes from gravity.

On the other hand, testudos are extremely vulnerable to countercharge by knights, so it depends on whether the English think to do this (that is, deploy archers to force legionnaires into testudos, and then charge home).

[Soras Teva Gee]

Just redid research (granted, haven't used actual sources, mostly wikipedia and whatever it links to, but still) - > longbows are in the 90-110-lb range at the upper limit (80-90 likely) and high-end recurve bows are 80-90 lb on the lower end and 150 lb on the high end of the scale. Main advantage of the longbow is that it's comparatively cheap to make and doesn't come fall apart in the rain.

Well wiki says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow):

Estimates for the draw of these bows varies considerably. Before the recovery of the Mary Rose, Count M. Mildmay Stayner, Recorder of the British Long Bow Society, estimated the bows of the Medieval period drew 90–110 pounds-force (400–490 newtons), maximum, and Mr. W.F. Paterson, Chairman of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, believed the weapon had a supreme draw weight of only 80–90 lbf (360–400 N) . Other sources suggest significantly higher draw weights. The original draw forces of examples from the Mary Rose are estimated by Hardy at 150–160 lbf (670–710 N) at a 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length; the full range of draw weights was between 100–185 lbf (440–820 N). The 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length was used because that is the length allowed by the arrows commonly found on the Mary Rose.

A modern longbow's draw is typically 60 lbf (270 N) or less, and by modern convention measured at 28 inches (71.1 cm). Historically, hunting bows usually had draw weights of 50–60 lbf (220–270 N), which is enough for all but the very largest game and which most reasonably fit adults can manage with practice. Today, there are few modern longbowmen capable of using 180–185 lbf (800–820 N) bows accurately.

The Mary Rose here is referring to a sunken ship that lead to an major archeological find of period bows.



That said, reason archers are meh is that they're hard to use tactically. They need a specific deployment where they can shoot straight, while at the same time they're protected from enemy forces. Oh, they will eat through pretty much any auxiliaries like a piranha through an unlucky boater, but will they beat legionnaires after the latter close the distance? Crecy and Agincourt are very specific circumstances that heavily favoured archers, where rain made a cavalry charge impossible and they were dug into their positions. And even then, at Agincourt, they actually did more damage in the ensuing hand to hand than with their arrows.

No they're not: Shoot enemy.

Are you believing that medieval tacticians were unaware of say the shieldwall and the the like? If they were useful they'd still be used. The point of the longbow is that it can hit you at up to 400 yrds, the practice ranges of the time were not allow to be less then 220 yrds.

How quickly can you cover that ground in a phalanx march? Answer not quickly, and you can expect arrows to hit you somewhere around every 5 seconds or so. And the closer you get, the more your shield and armor mean ever less.

Archers were evidently countered by cavalry, or later on with those lucky enough to afford complete plate mail.


As soon as archers have to shoot in an arc, their power lowers significantly Even assuming they can hit a formation (easy with large disorganized medieval mobs, difficult with compact Roman testudos advancing in checkerboard), and I'm assuming they can, simple physics makes that all of the arrows' kinetic energy comes from gravity.

Yes and that kinetic energy from gravity's acceleration will be almost equivalent. It would be equivalent except for losses from air resistance which matter more in an arc because of a larger flight time. But arrows don't suddenly become harmless at range.

Unless you can establish that the terminal velocity of an arrow is harmless. Even not getting through the shields doesn't help as a formation is not a roof.

You haul a shield over your head for the length of a two/three football fields, walking slowly, with a rain of arrows periodically slipping through to a knee and ending your life as an adventurer, and then fight at the end of it.

Oh and if you're really unlucky you get to fight a better rested formation of infantry or heavy cavalry at the end of that march.

[warty goblin]

And they tipped their arrows with, essentially, chisels. Now by the later middle ages and early Renaissance the advent of high quality tempered steel rendered the heavily armored fighting man at least highly arrow resistant, but such armors are well beyond the technical grasp of Imperial Rome.

The forwards facing chevrons of archers projecting beyond the foot line is also, as far as I know, a quintessentially medieval innovation. It was hard enough on men-at-arms in very high quality armor, against people relying on shields for defense it'll be even worse. It's a lot harder to cover your flanks with a shield, and the chevrons are very good at filling flanks with arrows.

If we push the time-line back to the 1360's or so, you'd also start to see field cannons. The morale impact of something that apparently supernatural is probably significant.

I also think the match-up of pole-arms against short sword and shield generally favors the pole-arms. Particularly those nasty-ass medieval pole-arms with the hooks and spikes everywhere which would be so good for snagging and pulling shields away. Add to that the relative uselessness of a gladius against somebody in transitional plate armor, and it isn't looking particularly good.

(Put differently, it seems reasonable to guess that if shield-walls would have worked in the fourteenth century, we'd have seen them a lot more. They were after all a dominant tactic right up until the late 11th century, and shields in various guises still showed up. The fact that nobody relied on them as a primary tactic anymore should probably tell us something about their utility on such a battlefield.)