Unusual question (concerning Romans and knights)

[Balog]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only two forces to consistently defeat heavy cav were the Cantonese Swiss mercs (and their Germanic Landsknecht imitators I suppose) and Welsh (later English) longbowmen, right?

[Hawkmoon]

Withdrawn

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only two forces to consistently defeat heavy cav were the Cantonese Swiss mercs (and their Germanic Landsknecht imitators I suppose) and Welsh (later English) longbowmen, right?

Same argument could be made in favor of the legions.  Was there any force able to consistently defeat Roman legions?  I mean, besides other Roman legions?  There was heavy cavalry during Roman times, yet they never seemed to be a problem for the Romans.

I think in the case of both the Roman legions and the knights, a big factor in their supremacy was that they were trained professional soldiers in standing armies, fighting against enemies who tended to be improvised militia type conscripts drawn up on fairly short notice.

[Balog]

I was not arguing for the superiority of one force versus the other, merely asking a question.

[French G.]

The problems of armor, graphically illustrated. 

[Snowdog]

Quite funny, French G.
 

I agree that one-on-one, the Roman soldier would have a heck of a time against a knight.
Unfortunately, I'm actually less certain now of the outcome of a one-on-one incursion than I was before posting. I was previously convinced of the outcome if a single knight were to battle a single legionnaire. I’m beginning to see that even this could be a toss-up.

It’s entirely possible the disciplined legionnaire would strategically bide his time and allow the knight to tire, as others pointed out, if it were 1:1.   I’m sure the Romans were aware how physically taxing the weight armor can be. I would agree that the legionnaire would then employ his shield as a battering ram, attempting to knock the exhausted knight off balance and to the ground, knowing the encumbered knight would lose much of his advantage.     

If both on foot and fighting in the way they were trained (along with retaining their experiences of previous combat), I believe the odds would be greatly in favor of the legion at 2:1, let alone 5:1. How anyone could convince themselves a knight could defeat 5 legionnaires (or 5 knights to 25 legionary soldiers) is now beyond me.

I am having issues believing that one of these guys (without the horse... of course)



Could best 5 of these guys (in formation):



However, I DO have some trouble seeing how, at least initially, these guys:



would be able to find a weakness in this guy's armor:



Unless they were able to thrust their gladius or pilum through the chainmail coif that protects the knight's throat (and they knew to strike there, which I suspect they would).

I'm thinking attrition would ultimately be the deciding factor.  With five men attacking/defending against one, I don't think that would be a problem, especially now that I believe a one-to-one match-up is closer to fair.

My coworker will not be pleased to hear this.

[tincat2]

i think i'd have to go with the legions on this from what i've read about both groups. the romans pretty much beat anyone they determined to subjugate and along that way they ran into all kinds of defenses and offenses(german size and fierceness was worrisome, but discipline and organization took the day as the scottish squares held against napoleon's supercharged cavalry at waterloo). secondly, the roman legionary was a much tougher customer than the wellborn knight. he lived in the open in all sorts of weather and did marches and manual labor routinely-i don't think the individual knight would have had a chance. the armor would have slowed him down while the roman would have eventually picked him apart.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

I don't think 5-1 odds would be very good for the knights, unless the knights were toting a pair of pistols.
My question is how many Legionaries it would take to defeat the Zulus at Isandlwana. Or how many it would take to do what Cortez did in Mexico.

[Matthew Carberry]

Knights didn't sit on their butts drinking.  They trained constantly in both hand to hand and all sorts of weapons techniques, techniques that were constantly refined to take advantage of improvements in mettalurgy and they studied and published treatises on individual, small unit and general warfare tactics.  These were hard, crafty, experienced professional fighting men, most of whom spent most of their lives fighting.

I don't know where the clumsy sword and armor and no skill meme came from but based on modern scholarship and the rediscovery of medieval fighting techniques I'd pit a European knight against any warrior in the world.

[Viking]

Knights didn't sit on their butts drinking.  They trained constantly in both hand to hand and all sorts of weapons techniques, techniques that were constantly refined to take advantage of improvements in mettalurgy and they studied and published treatises on individual, small unit and general warfare tactics.  These were hard, crafty, experienced professional fighting men, most of whom spent most of their lives fighting.

I don't know where the clumsy sword and armor and no skill meme came from but based on modern scholarship and the rediscovery of medieval fighting techniques I'd pit a European knight against any warrior in the world.

The craze about samurais, katanas and such probably did a lot for that.

[CAnnoneer]

Knights didn't sit on their butts drinking. 

That is correct. The knight was as professional a soldier as any. Most of what they did was fight, train to fight, practice fight. They would routinely practice with heavier weapons than used in combat, to push their stamina. They got the best food and accommodations, as well as the best equipment. Those were warriors on top of the food chain in any respect. While they did not build roads or fortifications with their hands as the professional legionnaires did, they had more than enough physical exercise through continual fighting, marching, and training. In terms of physical conditioning, I believe the average fighting knight was generally superior to the average professional legionnaire.

As far as the legion goes, a sharp distinction must also be made among republican, imperial, and late imperial legionnaires. The republican ones were mostly civilian levies of low quality and poor training, who were successful against barbarians chiefly by discipline. When they encountered professionals, e.g. in the Punic Wars, they tended to get slaughtered, even when they had a significant numerical advantage, e.g. Hannibal at lake Trazimene (sp?). By comparison, post-Caesar legionnaires were professional and highly trained and experienced. The quality declined again towards the end of Rome.

[tincat2]

i'm assuming we are matching guys of similar weight and experience at combat here. while the knight (the serious ones) were well conditioned and trained, i can't see them being as hard as the roman guys-it's almost feral versus domestic. boxing has been dominated for years by guys who came up hard and fought to survive as well as to prosper. most have been black until recently when we have seen some new arrivals from places where life has been tough. i saw a cage fight the other night where a young brazilian guy(whom i wouldn't be surprised to discover had not a bounty of advantages in his development) kicked the snot out of a pretty tough white guy(great punching power and tight body). he avoided the white guy's best shots and then leaped on him with a true survivor's passion-game over.
the scottish squares in wellington's army were made up of hard tough sorts who stood up to what had to be an incredible assault. those guys or wellington's irish guys would be a more even match for the legionaries. the scots would march into hell if need be and the irish would bring hell to you.

[Gowen]

I think the reason that cav units were ineffectual against a Roman cohort in block formation is the heavy use of spears.  It hard to attack a wall of shields and spears.

One factor in the equation of Knight verses Legionnaire is weapon length.  A 24 inch gladius vs. 36 inch longsword adds to the knights favor.  Then give him a flail in one hand and a sword in the other and that gladius or shield is negated.

[seeker_two]

In one-on-one combat, the knight has the advantage...esp. with a longsword or battle ax. Most knights used longswords like some Eastern martial artists use the staff...more than just slashing.  And Roman troops still have a lot of soft spots not protected by armor or shield.

Now...in a 5-man Roman formation vs. a mounted knight...it would depend on how quickly the knight could break up the formation with charges to the edge...or (in the late MA) possibly use of grenades....

Either way, I'd watch it on PPV.... 

[bedlamite]

All right, we'll call it a draw.