Another historical thread I want to do.

Basically, how well does a Roman Legion, from around 100 B.C to 180 A.D, fare against a High Medieval force from say...France, 1200 A.D?

I was under the impression that Feudal forces were more militia than professional forces.  Roman Legions were professional soldiers.  Again not 100% if that is true.

 
Heavy horse> phalanx.

Mounted men-at-arms would only make up about a fourth of your army, however.

Most of the guys doing your fighting are going to are going to be levies who have to quit fighting at the start of the harvest.

Somewhat.

For the Romans, it depends on what era your talking about. Before the Marian Reforms, for example, the Romans were primarily a militia of property holding citizen-soldiers.

After the reforms, the army became much more standardized and professional.

As for a feudal army:

Lances fournies

Slaughtered if they faced the Swiss, Germans or English I would say.

Again, depends on what time period.

Augustan era Legion would have little trouble facing a Early Middle Age Frankish or Anglo-Saxon army, as they were used to fighting Germanic levies who fought similarly. They might have a bit more trouble facing down a charge of mounted knights, but then again, it would be something that they were familiar with (Parthian/Sassanid cataphracts).

If they were facing a Late Medieval/Early Renaissance period force, when European forces were much more professional, organized, and had much better technology, then I'd say they'd give the Romans a run for their money. In particular the English and French armies at the height of their power in the 14th and 15th Century.

- Roman armies were never standardized until the Augustan period, Marius raised and disbanded his legions for each conflict he fought in. However, being a superbly capable general, each army he commanded (Jugurtha's War, Cimbri War, Social War) were all highly trained, organized, and disciplined, a feet few other contemporary Roman generals could claim, other than the more famous and successful generals of the Late Republic.

- Most Roman generals were not only extremely experienced themselves, having served up the ranks in various command and staff positions before assuming first pro-Praetorian and then pro-Consular command of field armies, but they were also highly educated in stratagems, logistics, etc., through reading popular military histories and treatises, and through familiar and personal experiences with other generals. By and large, the Roman general, should he even be remotely competent, would know a hundred ways to force a battle in his army's favor, to use terrain that benefited him, to fight only on conditions that benefited him. Now compare this to a number of feudal kings, to include in the high medieval era who's sole claim to power is being the first son of someone, whose formal military education at best would have focused on reading about the very exploits of the Romans in question.

- Logistics wins wars, and the Roman system was night and day better than anything during the medieval period, not being able to be reproduced until the Napoleonic era. The Roman Republic and Empire had food and supplies gathered from across their vast provinces, and the bread basket regions of Italy itself, to be transferred by ship to the nearest port city closed to the area of operations a campaign would occur in, whereby the supplies would then be moved by a large and highly organized and defended log train to a logistics hub/fortified town nearby to AO, where it would then be able to be issued out to the Roman army as needed. The ultimate pull system. In addition, Roman generals had the imperium to order whatever necessary supplies they needed from surrounding areas, and usually had the war chest to pay for whatever was needed. Not only would the Romans have the more organized force, the more disciplined force, it would be better armed, it would have ample supplies, a train that allowed for speed of march, and a system that allows for food, fodder, and reissuing of equipment lost or damaged during campaign (such as weapons, expendables, boots, clothing, etc.).

- Discipline was severe in the Roman army. Extremely severe. Common was in the mid-late Republic of men being executed for failing to follow relatively benign commands. I'm reminded of the story of a Roman consul, himself famous for as a younger man fighting single combat with a Gallic champion and killing him, later in another war with Gallic tribes forbidding anyone in his army from fighting any duels between the lines and they waited for battle; his son would disobey, fulfilling his family tradition by defeating a Gallic warrior, only to be scourged and beheaded on the orders of his own father upon returning to camp later that day. Decimation, being bludgeoned to death for relatively low crimes that would be ignored in most armies, officers issues vine sticks encouraged to use them freely against the men, the Romans would have never suffered the typical bouts of brooding indiscipline that was commonplace among the lordly class during the medieval period, where even kings held a rather precarious notion of command among their vassal retainers.

- As demonstrated by Rome's numerous wars with Armenians and Parthia, tactically, Roman infantry could rather easily defeat full armored heavy cavalry should they be positioned properly and using pre-planned fighting techniques. Lucullus, Pompey, Caesar, Ventidius, all used infantry to repulse/severely damage large cavalry forces in close in combat. When it came to dismounted combat, medieval infantry levies were not even in the realm to Roman infantry of the Late Republic. The heavily armored knightly class would have been a tactical problem, but no man, even one encased in full plate armor, is invincible, and those men-at-arms were grossly outnumber by the lower ranks of the medieval world, many of which would be untried, poorly equipped, and undisciplined compared to the Romans. Medieval missile armed infantry levies would have been largely negated by the stout shields of the Romans, and by the auxiliary/Foederati missile troops of Roman allies, Numidian javelineers, Cretan archers, and Balearic slingers.

- Size: Roman armies came in two standardized sizes during the mid-late Republic. The Praetorian army would have one Roman legion, with light infantry, heavy infantry, and cavalry, plus one equivalently sized allied "Wing", plus whatever local Foederati would be attached, usually from allies located closeby to the conflict theater/province. A consular army was double the size, two Roman legions, two Allied Wings, and more auxiliaries/foederati. In certain times, these armies would be sometimes doubled in size, Telamon, Cannae, Arausio, all had double strength consular armies present. Later in the Late Republican era, when logistics was becoming even better, and wars even larger, even larger armies were raised, with legions numbering between 6 (Sulla against Mithridates), 12 (Caesar in Gaul), 25 (M. Antonius/Caesar Octavianus during the Civil War). Medieval armies could never duplicate these numbers, ever. Kingdoms were not of sufficient size, money was never sufficient to pay for such armies. The Roman legions were supported by the incomes of most of the Mediterranean economy, while Medieval kingdoms had a few prosperous regions to plunder for any expeditions.

For those who might be interested, here is a fantastic paper written about Roman logistics. A must read for any person interested in ancient and even medieval warfare, as it does a very good job of explaining rudimentary logistics.

Thank you for your input! It's always a pleasure to see you in one of these threads!

I remember that. Consul Titus Manlius Torquatus

There is a Dutch painting that portrays the event harking back to the days of of hard service and hard discipline

The story that comes to mind- Roman ships were inferior to invading navy's.  Romans captured a ship, dismantled it down to the board, built a fleet of identical ships within a few months.  Logistics.  

And the ability of the Romans to muster more legions.  Democracy is a vicious blood pump.  Feudalism was very limited in its ability to form and fund large standing armies.

It was a story from the first Punic War, when Rome was outmatched by Carthage's navy, at first.

What they did was nothing short of innovative brilliance. (Including the aforementioned capturing and reverse engineering the quinquireme, but also developing the Corvus)

I'm kinda confused on why when I watch British documentaries about Rome, they are always pointing out and exaggerating the negatives, with almost no positives...

and yet when I watch American documentaries on the subject, it's always more neutral.

BBC presents guilt and fear.

And this is the main reason the Romans would win. Their technology and equipment might be notably inferior, but they could muster troops, field them, and supply them in the numbers that the modern United States military does, and keep them in the field like that for years at a time. That is nothing to sneeze at; even we only do that by virtue of advanced technology. They did this with much worse farming technology and much poorer ability to harness water for work than medieval feudal society did as well. The Romans knew their logistics.

Look at the number of troops involved in most major medieval battles. It's a laughable number compared to the numbers the Roman Republic and Empire fielded. Agincourt, for example, was barely a medium-sized battle by Roman standards. On a strategic level, the Romans overwhelming most medieval feudal armies would be a non-issue even if they might face severe trials here and there on the tactical level.

There's also the factor of how well the Romans innovated when they came up against something that gave them grave difficulty. They'd likely adapt to, reverse engineer, or outright steal any advantage an adversary had over them in short order.

I've always been impressed by that aspect of them.  They had no issue in swallowing pride and adapting or even copying an adversary's tactics or technology to suit their needs.  I love the story of how they got the gladius, in that their experience in Spain showed them it was a superior sword for close-in fighting versus the long-bladed swords in use at the time.

Not to be pedantic but the Gladius Hispaiensis was equal to or actually a bit longer than the previously popular Roman swords, a mix of La Tene I and II swords as well as local Italian derivatives of the Hellenic xiphos and kopis types.  Where the Spanish Sword truly excelled was not in style (25-27" blade, point heavy, often waisted) but in quality of metallurgy, smithing, and simplicity of construction. Likely owning a Gladius Hispaniensis was akin to owning a Mercedes or BCM carbine, well made and famous for quality. Romans actually copied the overall sword template but often failed to meet metallurgy quality, akin to buying a Del-Ton AR15 or WASR AK.

Later, during the 1st Cent AD the traditional Gladius Hispaniensis began to be superseded by the Mainz and Mainz Fulham styles, wider, shorter, more tapered point and more heavily waisted, definitely more suited for close in infantry sword and shield combat. Another half century later the even shorter Pompeii style would become popular, it's blade typically 20" in length, straight bladed or lightly tapered, optimized for the thrust.

A professional army, post Gaius Marius' reforms, would have no trouble winning a battle of attrition against an army made up predominantly of serfs compelled to fight for their lord.  Even leadership qualities would be vastly different, again the Romans having leaders who moved up a rank structure vs the medieval nobles who are in leadership roles due to birthright only.

Interesting thread, I would say the well trained, well funded, experienced and well equipped Frankish Army of Charles Martel could give the Romans a good run, but I generally concur with the sentiment in the thread.   The Romans of the professional imperial army were a well led, well motivated and well supported machine. Hard to fight and win against that machine, and while you might win a battle, they would invariably win the war.

The late medieval army would have two major advantages that the Romans never had to face. The stirrup and the plentiful medieval crossbowman. There was simply no comparison between the Persian heavy cavalry and a medieval knight because of the stirrup. The medieval crossbow was easy to use, easy to train soldiers, and powerful.   

Ever read Ranks of Bronze or the Weber follow-up?

The Romans see it, reverse engineer them, and shift tactics in order to defeat their opponents.

The Romans were nothing if not pragmatic when it came to waging war.