Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink

one Roman Legion

• Message 1.Ìý

  Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 12th March 2009

  right = by 410 all the roman troops in britain had gone - except for one legion that was left behind - fully operational - and on task - paid for by the british tribes thtat took over
  
  from 410 to 106 there was nothing - vikings-angles - saxos etc that could destroy this one legion - is there ?
  
  every pitched battle was only using at max 7000 troops - no problem for a legion surely
  
  saxon raids were ok but it had to culminate in a final battle - legion rules ok
  
  it all culmiates in hatings - who would win there
  
  st
  
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: one Roman Legion

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Friday, 13th March 2009

  Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:37 GMT, in reply to stalteriisok in message 1
  
  So... are you asking basically if the Normans or a Legion would win at Hastings?
  
  Well, one has to bear in mind that late Roman legions were smaller than in their heyday in the Principate. Their tactics also don't seem to have been wildly different to their hypothetical Anglo-Saxon and Viking opponents. You also seem to be assuming (forgive me if I have misunderstood) that the legion would not evolve in terms of equipment and tactics by the time Billy the Conk turned up.
  
  Ultimately, there's no reason to suppose a late Roman legion would have a significantly greater or lesser chance of winning at Hastings (and in fact if they were not supported by additional troops they would probably be in a weaker position due to a substantial numerical inferiority.

  Link to this forum: one Roman Legion

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 13th March 2009

  hi anglo norman
  
  basically - yes thats what i mean
  
  i actually mean the earlier (up to 2c) heavy infantry legions
  
  its a continuing personal "What if" to me
  
  all the significant battles in the dark ages - eg ethandun, mount baddon etc are piched battles involving smallish armies slugging it out- this includes Hastings
  
  basically - apart from the warrior elite (who were themselves a bunch of undiscipled physcopaths lol) the bulk of the armies were a herd of fit farmers
  
  at any of the major battles surely a hard core of trained troops without any reason to step outside the shield wall would sort out the "peasant" armies - see paulinius versus boudicca
  
  even the Huscarles were individual - although immense - warriors - they attacked shield walls with huge axes but no shields - the roman gladii were too efficient surely
  
  hastings was (apparently)won through the breaking of the shield wall - a legion would not have moved
  
  st

  Link to this forum: one Roman Legion

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Saturday, 14th March 2009

  
  
  at any of the major battles surely a hard core of trained troops without any reason to step outside the shield wall would sort out the "peasant" armies - see paulinius versus boudicca
  Ìý
  
  They didn't do too well in the Teutoburg forest.
  
  
  
  'Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!
  All three of them.

  Link to this forum: one Roman Legion

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 14th March 2009

  haesten
  yes indeed - but that was different - it was a coalition of tribes fighting on their own territory against legions where they should never have been!!
  
  a british army (which i call a legion that was trained and disciplined ) could have won any major battle over the next 400 yrs at least
  
  the major battle were fought between loose armies of ama- proffesionals would have carried the day and reshaped history
  
  st

  Link to this forum: one Roman Legion

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by RSS_643_IKWIG (U13662597) on Thursday, 26th March 2009

  Thursday. 26th March, 2009. 11:10GMT
  Re. 'one Roman Legion' (there's only one Roman Legion...); sung to the ubquitous theme tune no doubt: from now on.
  NB. Personally; whilst some people take offence at being known as 'Romano - British' in ancestry; the IX LEGION was to those like myself; educated in the 'STATE School System' of the East Midlands (The Earldom of Leicester) and principally as an 11PLUS 'Grammar School Pupil': a 'PROPER description' of the 'merry men' associated with the colour 'Lincoln Green' and the 'Forest of Sherwood'. You could look for the BARRACK of the IX LEGION at Scampton; on the A1 or 'Great North Road': underneath the old 'Agricultural Show Grounds'.
  Personally as far as I understand; there has always been a debate as to whether 'The Eagle of the Ninth' as a children's novel was acceptable HISTORY; to those that were educated by CAM or 'OXbridge': afterall the remains of 'that EAGLE' as discovered by later archeologists (whilst researching the history of the 'Dark Ages') were 'perhaps' seen in the 'excellent' Children's Ö÷²¥´óÐã (British Broadcasting Corporation) adaptation of the eponymous novel by a certain Ms. Sutcliffe. 'Real HISTORY'; as they say: should be more than a 'folktale'. There should be a 'true record' (written down), with a DATE attached...
  For the record; the IX LEGION became in the 'true record': the 45th of Foot / BRITISH MARINE / BRITISH NAVY. Subsequently; Sherwood Forester Regiment. The 'true record' of the NAVAL DIVISION at Cambrai, 1917; is TANK Reg. and Tank Corps...
  Please remember; historically; the 'Green Jackets' in 'mourning' always wore BLACK; formally as the RIFLE BRIGADE (or 95th of Foot) and in the MODERN ERA as the TANK Reg.
  ps. look kindly on the 'counter clock' when time draws near. Time's future and time's past is a 'BLANK face'. A 'black slate' clock which is a triangular movement (with bicycle gears) only notes the hour and the minute of 'your or my own' DEATH.
  

  Link to this forum: one Roman Legion

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Thursday, 26th March 2009

  Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:05 GMT, in reply to RSS_643_IKWIG in message 6
  
  Que?

  Link to this forum: one Roman Legion

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by justalexander (U13884823) on Thursday, 26th March 2009

  Varus was an arrogant incompetent fool whe led his legions into an ambush.
  
  Roman military history is dotted with great commanders its also littered with incompetent fools. The most incompetent had to be the commanders whos idiocies kept leading armies into Hannibals Ambushes. I think we could assume Maybe Caesar or even Alexander could be caught out once by Hannibal but repeating the error no way. Those idiotis Roman generals relied on mass box formation legions to roll over Hannibal with Absolute useless cavalry.
  
  Hannibal would not cave chased Alexanders Cavalry away nor would I imagine Caesar getting boxed in at Canae.
  
  Apart from these idiots Id always argue good Roman Commanders combined with the main ingredient Discipline would hold and Viking or Anglo Saxon assault.
  
  Looking at a Roman Formation today its prett difficult to think of a way to deafeat such well drilled and protected blocks. They were hevily shielded and rienforced rank by rank.All the way round and at the rear. Even if you smashed the first few ranks with heavy cavalry your still hitting line upon line of troops.
  
  No way would Hannibal beat a Julius Caesar and even Alexander would have his hands full finding a way through.
  
  Battle of Hastings. William has to be the luckiest Commander ever. If the Saxans had not been pre occupied at Stamford Bridge im sure hed have done far better at Hastings. Even hastings was a stale mate till the Saxon Lines broke.
  
  There is rupour that there was some kind of deal between the Normans and Vikings. Had Harold been ready down south Willian would have had far more trouble even landing his forces. William basically raided and un guarded Supermarket.
  
  

  Link to this forum: one Roman Legion

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 26th March 2009

  I am not that confident for the capacity of legions, a very particular military system that never convinced me of its merits (I find it too over-consuming in terms of men/ressources).
  
  Take note also that after 400 A.D. "barbarians" were not the "naif" tribes that earlier Romans fought. If their battles still resembled a rumble that was mainly due to the fact that most feudal battles implicated very tiny armies often 600 men against 800 men...well there it was natural to see the battle ending up in "fist-fighting" rather than any ordered plan. However, we see for example later that the Crusaders were not ignorant of battle tactics and that even despite their general illiterateness and general barbarism.
  
  Many of European medieval armies were aware of Roman tactics and even their evolutions. If speaking about the eastern Slavic nations we have for example Bulgarians who living next to Eastern Romans were drilled into becoming a full copy of Byzantine army in training as well as weaponry - only lacking complex siege machinery and the liquid fire canons - Bulgarians unfortuntaly for Greeks combined both wild barbarism and Byzantine tactics were an army to reckon and if the world does not speak of them it is because, unlike Vickings, they did not take it to the seas!
  
  Back in the west, the likes of Saxons and later Normands knew how to fight and had sufficient troop variation (archers, heavy/light infantry, heavy cavalry) to experiment with battle tactics, at least enough to pose real trouble to even a well-trained, war-weathered, expertly led legion. After all Roman legions had lost practically all first-contact battles!

  Link to this forum: one Roman Legion

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by justalexander (U13884823) on Thursday, 26th March 2009

  Niko
  
  Sorry mate I think you over estimate the Teautonic Armies. With all there tin balistas etc etc. They got totally slaughtered by lightly armoured Mongolians.
  
  Ive studied Mongolian warriors and particullay there numbers and speed and wondered how they could be stopped. The European Armies couldnt no one did.
  
  Alexander with his 40 000 army would have to come up with something clever. His small though amongst the best cavaly couldnt be efficient as a tool against such hoards. Could the Macedonian Phalanxes hold it from all sides I doubt it. Through shear numbers I feel the huge Mongol Armies would over run Alexander.
  
  A Roman army as big as Canea and the Quality of Caesars Command and Legions would hold the Monguls. Forget any Roman Cavalry even Mercenary cavalry The Khans Cavalry troops have to be near the top. But with equal numbers Alexander would have stopped Ghengis and his Monguls for a start I doubt Alexander would be terrified as many of the Monguls enemies were.
  
  kenny

  Link to this forum: one Roman Legion

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by Penske666 (U9181113) on Tuesday, 7th April 2009

  The only Roman things I know of at Scampton are the two roads converging and the Villa, There are several forts/forlets on the road but non here? (Lincoln, Littleborough, Scaftworth, Rossington, Doncaster and Robin Hoods Well)

  Link to this forum: one Roman Legion

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 7th April 2009

  Overthehill, I was refering to "Teutonic", "Saxonic", "Scandinavic" and other western european armies but also eastern european like Bulgarian armies not in comparison to Mongols but Roman legions (especially the late ones). Speaking for this comparison, I think those western armies did not lack much, they had the ability to face one on one the late Roman legions, anyway largely comprising of recent recruits among... them!!!
  
  It would be difficult to set up a comparison between a 2000-strong Saxon army and a 150,000 strong Mongol army comprising 100% cavalry owning 4 horses per cavalier! I mean the numbers are not comparable. And even if you place a 150,000 Saxons (say 120,000 infantry and 30,000 horsemen) how would you compare with Mongols who too often simply avoided battles and fell like locusts in rural areas desertifying the whole place, not to submission but to oblivion!
  
  The problem with Mongols was not so much the technical details of their battle tactics (one could cope with the larger distance he had to keep from Mongol horse-archers, or set traps and defenses against their horses or wear thicker and multilayered armour etc. etc. The problem was "how to face their military strategy" that did not revolve around full conquest, not around decisive victories and which did not consider retreating as any defeat - for them even when winning they could just retreat and go raid the neighbouring villages. European armies trying to defend their lands had simply to change mindset. And the opposite holds true: when Mongols would try to settle in a given territory and organise and defend it they were practically losing that basic part of their strategy (their elusiveness) that made them almost unbeatable and they were beaten.
  
  Comparing the 40,000 Greek invader army in Asia in 330 B.C. with the 1,000,000 Mongol raiding army in Asia in 1200 A.D. is very exciting, it is one of the favourite of "alternative/fantasy battles" but is not exactly easy. What is funny is that both armies may faced opponents resembling the other: Persian army had important number of horse-archers (and had an immense army, quite mobile) and the muslims that Mongols faced had faced some heavier units (cavalry and infantry) since Arabs nd Turks had been to an extend influenced by Byzantine tactics. Of course the context of these two examples was very different and for both cases we may say that leadership of opponents was short of the circumstances.
  
  Now, could we ever have such a conflict? I do not know any case of two such great figures and of that magnitude to have clashed. So my guess that had Alexander decided to invade the lands under conquest by a Jenkis Han army he would certainly not go in with his 40,000 soldiers as they were. Had Jenkis Han decided to raid the lands under conquest by Alexander he would certainly not enter from the main road like he so often did elswhere! Alexanders' army was also taught to be broken into small units and go chase down and obliterate guerilla fighters in the highest of mountains while Jenkis Han's armies were taught how to root the most disciplined and well trained/armed armies. If anything in such a war we would see both armies testing and re-testing and re-constructing their strategies bringing in a lot of innovation and even new weaponry.

  Link to this forum: one Roman Legion

  Report message12

Back to top