Since the thread has started up again .... I think the issue is complicated in a part by what you mean when you say 'roman army vs medieval army'. If you are assuming for instance that a Roman Legion from say the mid imperial period just happened to march through a wormhole onto a Medieval field of battle then you are conceding critical technological advantages to the medievalists, e.g. the stirrup, advances in steel making and hence arms and armor, fortifications - i.e. high period castles and depending on the period early gun powder weapons. In this case you would be putting the Romans at a significant disadvantage.
On the other hand if you are arguing for a medieval army based on the roman pattern. e.g. say from a hypothetical 'rump' empire or even a slightly altered Byzantium then you have another story entirely. In this case the Romans would have access to all the relevant technology that the 'medieval's had. In other words they would be facing an army trained, organized and lead along roman lines but equipped just as well as they were. This makes a BIG difference. Now they would be facing an army with arguably superior cohesion, discipline, organization and (formation) training.
In such a scenario instance I suspect however that the roman commander would be sorely tempted to abandon the pilum and javelin as his primary missile weapons and adopt the crossbow (assuming a continental frame of reference) or arquebus instead - depending on the period. The gladius stays as the back-up weapon (made of 'modern' steel of course). Take a look a various falchions and 'hanger' type swords etc from the medieval period and there's not much to choose between them.
I suspect however that the Roman commander might be strongly inclined to reequip most of his auxiliary cohorts as crossbowmen say (3 men in 4) with the rest retaining the traditional scutum/pilum combo as more flexible substitutes for the medieval pavise. As for the legionary cohorts I also think he would be tempted to drop the scutum/pilum in exchange for polearms such as bills or poleaxes because when it came to 'push and shove' a pole weapon was going to have superior reach - maybe each cohort's command group would retain the old weapons for flexibility, who knows?
As for the cavalry continent the Romans would 'up-armor' to match their contemporaries as far as they could.
I say all of the above remembering that the Romans had no qualms about adopting other cultures military technologies when it was to their advantage. So under this scenario I think it would be Roman organization and discipline that would give them the day, all other factors being equal of course.
On the other hand if you are arguing for a medieval army based on the roman pattern. e.g. say from a hypothetical 'rump' empire or even a slightly altered Byzantium then you have another story entirely. In this case the Romans would have access to all the relevant technology that the 'medieval's had. In other words they would be facing an army trained, organized and lead along roman lines but equipped just as well as they were. This makes a BIG difference. Now they would be facing an army with arguably superior cohesion, discipline, organization and (formation) training.
In such a scenario instance I suspect however that the roman commander would be sorely tempted to abandon the pilum and javelin as his primary missile weapons and adopt the crossbow (assuming a continental frame of reference) or arquebus instead - depending on the period. The gladius stays as the back-up weapon (made of 'modern' steel of course). Take a look a various falchions and 'hanger' type swords etc from the medieval period and there's not much to choose between them.
I suspect however that the Roman commander might be strongly inclined to reequip most of his auxiliary cohorts as crossbowmen say (3 men in 4) with the rest retaining the traditional scutum/pilum combo as more flexible substitutes for the medieval pavise. As for the legionary cohorts I also think he would be tempted to drop the scutum/pilum in exchange for polearms such as bills or poleaxes because when it came to 'push and shove' a pole weapon was going to have superior reach - maybe each cohort's command group would retain the old weapons for flexibility, who knows?
As for the cavalry continent the Romans would 'up-armor' to match their contemporaries as far as they could.
I say all of the above remembering that the Romans had no qualms about adopting other cultures military technologies when it was to their advantage. So under this scenario I think it would be Roman organization and discipline that would give them the day, all other factors being equal of course.
Comment