Roman Empire vs The Crusades

Avatar image for army2442
Army2442

4876

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The Roman Empire:

Two full legions (20,000 legionaries)

10,000 Archer auxlia (Italian tributaries)

10 onogers

600 praetorian cavalrymen

vs.

The Crusades:

15,000 knights (chainmail with longswords and kite shields)

5,000 longbow men

5 trebuchets

500 lancers.

Rules:

morals off

Gear:

Standard unless specified

Battlefield:

open plains 1/2 mile apart

Versions:

Historical

Victory conditions:

forced retreat or surrender

Avatar image for nerdchore
nerdchore

8461

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

well the roman empire was far more organized and tactical but the crusaders have superior defense and armor. If the Romans draw it out they can win.

Avatar image for cjdavis103
Cjdavis103

10010

Forum Posts

51

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@army2442:

....

you do relize that the crusaders are 100s of years more advanced right? their steel is far superior then the bronse weapons of the romens

next is the fact that the Knights are all elite solders with top of the line gear I doubt that the romans can kill any knight

and the long bowmen all have much larger range and are all master archards where as the romans are all normal . even with twice the number ther roman archards are not even half as effective

Kinghts stomp monted combat with ease

and the 100s of years of technological devlopment means the sige edge goes to the middle ages

Crusaders stomp with low dificulty

Avatar image for jedixman
JediXMan

42943

Forum Posts

35961

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 16

#4 JediXMan  Moderator

The problem with these kinds of battles - and battles including Spartans - is that people forget the fact that there is a very wide technological gap. Soldiers of the Crusades had better armor, better use of horsemanship, longer range weapons, etc.

Avatar image for eisenfauste
Eisenfauste

19633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Crusaders. Their swords will cut through bronze weapons. Not to mention the longbow archers have superior range and each one is trained to fire 12 arrows in under a minute. Bye bye calvary. The lancers also have heavy armor and will break through any roman formation pretty handily.

Crusaders 9/10

Avatar image for detrolord
Detrolord

3198

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The Crusades

Avatar image for army2442
Army2442

4876

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I attempted to mitigate the armor advantage by clarifying the use of chain mail as the armor for the knights and giving Rome the numbers edge.

Avatar image for shadowswordmaster
ShadowSwordmaster

19974

Forum Posts

10454

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 13

The Crusaders

Avatar image for nerdchore
nerdchore

8461

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@army2442: the romans only have tactics to their advantage. They are outclassed in every other categort

Avatar image for mayan_fist
Mayan_Fist

1014

Forum Posts

4

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cjdavis103:

I agree with most parts of this post, although Romans used iron age weapons derived from the people they conquered, including from the conquered peoples in the Italian, Iberian and Balkan peninsulas. However, the battle being set on the open plains means that the legions will end up being picked off by lancers and longbowmen, much like when the legions tried confronting Parthian horsemen on an open battlefield.

Longbowmen would trump any long ranged units that the Romans had, not to mention that by this time the knights had access to cast iron weaponry and armor. Not to mention, with nearly all of the fighters on the Crusader's side being cavalry, they have the mobility advantage.

I'd say the knights take take this with medium casualties.

Avatar image for cjdavis103
Cjdavis103

10010

Forum Posts

51

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mayan_fist:

they have very early iron era weapons and most of their armor is very low grade comparied to the plate and chain of the knights 90% of the romans weapons are insufficient to pirce their armor

Avatar image for wut
Wut

8212

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Steel swords will not cut straight through bronze swords. Repeated strikes will break the bronze swords, but hit two pieces of metal against each other long enough, and they will break. Not to mention Roman fighting style was based more on letting their opponents hit their shields, step in and stab with their short sword. Banging swords together was not the roman means. Humans do not have the muscle power necessary to sheer through bronze. Furthermore, most of the Roman weaponry was Iron. Not bronze. This is the Roman Empire which is from 30ish BC to 500ish AD. A time when Iron weapons became very prominent in Europe.

Infantry: Why in the world is there 15,000 dismounted knights as infantry? Most of the infantry of Medieval Europe, yes Crusades included, were not knights but normal men. Pre-11th century and so was mostly commoners and unskilled peasants but afterwards most of the infantry work was done by trained men. Knights were not the mainstay infantry unit by any stretch of the imagination since they could afford horses.

In an infantry battle, I am inclined to give the edge to the Romans. Knights are superb fighters, anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. I would easily suggest that a knight is superior to any legionnaire in a one on one battle. But this isn't one on one. The Romans are a highly disciplined fighting force who maintain better 'unit cohesion' compared to Knights who are being forced to fight on foot such as Roman Centuriors would change the ranks mid-combat to allow the front ranks to rest and fresh ranks to move forward. Roman weaponry is better suited to the close 'shield wall' type fighting that two infantry units will find themselves in. Knights have the same 'fighting weaponry' of the barbarian tribes which was usually a shield and a long blade, but this proved to be their downfall as the Romans would block the longer blade, step within its reach, and stab the wielder. Knight Chainmail is unlikely to stop a short thrusting blade as it is meant for slashes something Romans rarely, if ever, use. Depending on the era of the Empire, Roman armor ranges from scale, chain, or the 'plate' armor that was strips of metal held by leather pieces which are all fairly good armor.

Romans also had another advantage in their Pilums as they will be chucking these before the battle begins.

So, the Romans should have a nice lead in the Infantry. Edge - Romans

Just an afterthought, Longswords were normally used in two hands. Arming swords were the 'one-handed' swords most commonly used.

Archers: This is a massive, massive advantage to the Crusaders. Their Longbows outmatch comparable roman counterparts in every way. Longbows have superior range and power. If the Crusaders play it smart, they can continue to fall back and harass the Romans allowing them to chose the battlefield. The Longbow is going to be a very hard obstacle to overcome. Roman Infantry can still advance thanks to the testudo formation, but the Longbow is going to wreck havoc. Edge - Crusaders

Siege Weaponry: Once again, technology comes into play. Trebuchets are going to have a further range, hit harder and be more accurate then a catapult. I don't have to really explain this. The only edge an Onage might have is that most of them had wheels while Trebuchet designed varied with many being built and taken down on the spot while others had wheels. Edge - Crusaders

Cavalry: The knights should be here, if we are being honest, as nearly all knights could afford to be mounted. By 'lancers' do you mean medieval mounted knights using lances? Either way, the knights will demolished their roman counterparts. Horsemanship has come a long way since roman era who were mostly focused on infantry. The Knights, thanks to lances, will also hurt when they strike the infantry. Edge - Crusaders

This seems cut and dry, but we have to consider pre-gunpowder battles. The victory was usually decided by the infantry. The one that broke first lost. While I believe the Roman infantry will, eventually, beat out the 'knights', it will, by no means, be a fast or simple struggle. The Longbows are going to wreck havoc on Roman archers, cavalry, and unlucky legionaries, but the major defining moment is going to be when the Crusader Lancers engage and break the Roman cavalry. When they do this, they are free to openly chase down surviving Roman Archers and hit Roman infantry in the flanks and rear. This is going to cause massive morale issues as soldiers in front of you is one thing. Mounted warriors crashing in behind you is another.

With repeated assaults, archer volleys, and skilled dismounted knights holding their ground due to honor, pride, what have you, I am inclined to believe that the Crusaders will eventually break the legionnaires and force a retreat which will turn into a rout.

Victors: Crusaders. 8.5/10.

Avatar image for army2442
Army2442

4876

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

What if I got removed the long bowmen and replaced them 200 Milanese crossbowmen.

Romans have 1200 praetorian cav now and the lancers are just mounted knights with lances and chainmail armor.

Avatar image for fallschirmjager
Fallschirmjager

23432

Forum Posts

1162

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 16

@jedixman said:

The problem with these kinds of battles - and battles including Spartans - is that people forget the fact that there is a very wide technological gap. Soldiers of the Crusades had better armor, better use of horsemanship, longer range weapons, etc.

Kingdoms and Empires of antiquity didn't even have proper saddles or stirrups. The reason Cavalry became so dominant in the middle age is because thy developed stirrups and good saddles. Back in Roman times (and even Alexander's famed Companions) their saddles consisted of a nice blanket / cloth draped over the horse's back and no stirrups.

While it required enormous amounts of skill to fight like that, being able to properly seat yourself onto the horse and gain leverage on the stirrups makes cavalry charges completely devastating to infantry men. The only counter was pike formations (but they had their own vulnerabilities) or until musket technology advanced enough to the point where it would just obliterate a cavalry charge.

Avatar image for etheral_dreams
Etheral_Dreams

6116

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15  Edited By Etheral_Dreams

Romans lack the technological advantage but have superior numbers and tactics. The crusaders are hundreds of years more advanced and more skill with their weapons. Crusades 8/10.