Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.53880689 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

What would be the likely outcome if a Roman legionnaire and a medieval knight threw down?

>> No.53880729

>>53880689

Depends. Both descriptions can cover warriors from time periods hundreds of years long. Depending on which century you pulled each from their equipment would be different. Not all legionaries or Knights are made equal. It also depends on the circumstances of their fight. I would probably bet on the knight. Legionaries were fantastic soldiers, but they were trained and equiped for fighting in groups. Knights were more versed in single combat.

>> No.53880732

>>53880689
The Roman gets his shit kicked in.

>> No.53880747

>>53880689
The legionnaire gets shot. With a gun.

>> No.53880773

They're different kinds off fighters. Legionnaires are rank and file soldiers that fight as a team. Knights were champions and bodyguards and mercenaries. In a one on one knights have a huge advantage in being trained duelists.

>> No.53880803

>>53880689
Not enough info, depends on a lot of variables. Saged

>> No.53880830

>>53880803
One of the guys in the OP vs one of the grunts in this picture.

>> No.53880838

Knight wins because he has a horse.

>> No.53880882

>>53880830
The knight would win, easily. They're better trained and better equipped.

Look, as much as I like to praise the Roman Legionnaire we have to recognize they kind of became more a symbol of a glorious past more than a symbol of a technologically superior past by the 16th century. If you were asking me to compare an Anglo-Saxon thegn to a Legionnaire, I'd argue in favor of the Legionnaire. But a French knight in full plate? That's going to Sir Guillaume.

>> No.53880963

>>53880689

Knight wins. He has superior armor. He has a weapon and training optimized for individual combat.

The Roman is very, very well trained. But it's as part of a formation. He arms and armor are built for that as well. Even if they're both on foot, the Roman loses.

In a mass combat, the outcome is less clear. A medieval army had very strong cavalry but very weak infantry. The Romans weren't used to cavalry like that, but I'm not sure they couldn't have handled it. Certainly they would shatter the medieval infantry in short order. Historically, knights had trouble against discipled ranks of well-trained and well-equipped infantry. The Roman obsession with march security and well-defended encampments make a cavalry raid strategy infeasible.

Medieval armies' structure also made them less responsive to good generalship than the well organized Roman legionary organization. Feudal European armies mostly fought against similar opponents. Whereas the Romans routinely fought all kinds of different enemies. Overall, I'd give the edge to Rome in a mass combat.

>> No.53880987

Is anything in the roman's toolkit going to go through plate?

>> No.53880999

>>53880747
He said knight, not samurai.

>> No.53881017

>>53880999
Tanegashima are cheating, anyway.

>> No.53881023

>>53880963
>but I'm not sure they couldn't have handled it.

The history of the Roman Empire was defined by their inability to handle heavy cavalry, it's the one thing they have been perennially poor at defeating.

>> No.53881049

>>53880999
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKMw2it8dQY

>> No.53881108

>>53881023
Not him, but they sort of figured it out. They managed to sack the capital of Parthia once for every eagle Crassius lost. Their strategy was "avoid pitched battles and rely on our superior logistics and siege capabilities", but that's still a valid strategy.

Though this thread is retarded. A warrior with better armor, weapons, who was trained from youth to kill would be a very hard fight. Unless the Roman was able to do the legendary 'stab an area the size of a small coin with so much speed and ferocity that you can't even see it' but I never really bought that.

>> No.53882509

>>53880689
Medieval is a period of a thousand years. Roman legions existed from the Late Republic to the Fall of the Western Empire, a period of roughly 500 years. And then there's the fact that the Roman Empire in the East continued to exist throughout almost the entirety of the Middle Ages.

Not only are your terms way too broad, but there is going to be a huge, insurmountable technology gap between the two in most scenarios (unless it's like late Western Empire elite units vs Charlemagne's paladin or something). It's like asking if a Napoleonic Old Guard could take on a US Marine.

>>53881023
>The history of the Roman Empire was defined by their inability to handle heavy cavalry, it's the one thing they have been perennially poor at defeating.
Though in the Imperial days, a lot of their cavalry was auxilia from territories they conquered. The Romans were pretty good at absorbing whatever worked from their enemies, as evidenced by their legions using Gallic chainmail and Spanish swords after figuring out that the Greek hoplite model didn't work out for them too well.

>> No.53882550

The knight would be shot by the US marine

>> No.53883026

>>53882550
The US marine would be publically executed by an US cop.
Should've gotten that turn light fixed.

>> No.53885256

>>53880987
Depends. Was the Roman entrenching at the time?

>> No.53886270

>>53880689
the anime-tier history in this thread is entirely depressing

>> No.53886375

>>53880963
Rome had Cataphracts.

>> No.53886462

>>53886375
Thought that was Alexander.

>> No.53886830

>>53886462
The Byzantines were famous for their use of cataphracts in the Middle Ages, it was the only truly heavy cavalry in Europe at the time.

>> No.53886908

>>53880689
If the knight is in full plate it's gonna be hella difficult for the Roman, I tell you what.

It's not like Byzantines existed or anything though, right?

>> No.53886953

>>53886908
>It's not like Byzantines existed or anything though, right?

Actually, this is a good question; what happened when a Germanic knight and a Byzantine Cataphract fought? Who would win? I recall the Cataphract fell out of fashion in favor of those who could afford Western armor (typically the landowners elevated to petty nobility by Pronoia.)

>> No.53887062

>>53886375
They should get their eyes examined, then

>> No.53888269

>>53880882
Lone knight vs lone legionnaire: knight wins.
A unit of knights vs a unit of legionnaires... I don't think Romans ever had to face heavy cavalry.

>> No.53888579

>>53888269
not heavy calvary with stirrups that allowed for full thrusting power and penetration with exceptional control while in the saddle

>> No.53888653

>>53880689
you're comparing a highly trained elite soldier trained since childhood by an actively serving warrior to a rank and file footsoldier. knight would probably win.

>> No.53889281

>>53881023
Don't spout lies. The Roman Empire had no particular difficulty facing heavy cavalry and eventually developed quality heavy cav of their own.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action