3 ms·

> Professional feudal armies would have crushed Roman armies of equivalent sizes. Really? Why? The other thing is that a feudal state wouldn't be able to fiel

> Professional feudal armies would have crushed Roman armies of equivalent sizes. Really? Why? The other thing is that a feudal state wouldn't be able to field an army that was of an equivalent size to a Roman army. The Romans fielded eight legions at Cannae, which was like 80,000 guys. Agincourt, in comparison, involved about a quarter of that number if you combine both sides. Even if the roman legionnaire was worse than a feudal soldier, which I see no reason to believe, it's obvious that there was a precipitous decline in organizational and logistical capacity. In a battle, that would count more than the quality of the soldiers involved.

hef19898 5y ago
Plus, nit to forget, a Legionnaire was a professional soldier. The majority of feudal armies was part time soldiers. Exceptions were late medieval, early Renaissance mercenaries. And those, e.g. Landsknechts, men-at-arms and the Swiss pikemen, dominated the battlefields in their time. The Romans build their empire on logistics and organization as much as they did on legions and civil engineering. No feudal kingdom came close to that.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Retric 5y ago
Rome had a huge empire and could therefore field large armies so yes they had a real logistical advantage. As to feudal soldiers vs legionnaires it was largely a question of equipment. Mounted knights required horse that weren’t available to Rome because selective breeding had yet to produce them. Improvements in metalwork and armor design resulted in far better coverage for the same weight. Knights largely stopped using shields because they didn’t need them as much as they could use a free hand. That said there was a large variation on both sides. Disease, exhaustion etc could also wreck an otherwise capable army.
- pasabagi 5y ago
  >Rome had a huge empire and could therefore field large armies My feeling is actually that as the empire grew, the armies they could field somewhat declined. When Cannae happened, the Romans were big, but not huge, and they could literally field army after army of professional soldiers. Part of this was demographics (there had been a population boom in Italy) but part of it is economics and state capacity. I would guess that up until really late (like, 1880's) warfare was not that technical, so stuff like 'elan' and 'will' was typically by far the most important characteristic in a soldier. That's at least what generals right up to the first world war tended to prize. When it comes to sheer discipline, bloodymindedness and martial spirit, I don't think anybody would surpass the Romans until the modern era.

hef19898 5y ago

Plus, nit to forget, a Legionnaire was a professional soldier. The majority of feudal armies was part time soldiers. Exceptions were late medieval, early Renaissance mercenaries. And those, e.g. Landsknechts, men-at-arms and the Swiss pikemen, dominated the battlefields in their time. The Romans build their empire on logistics and organization as much as they did on legions and civil engineering. No feudal kingdom came close to that.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Retric 5y ago

Rome had a huge empire and could therefore field large armies so yes they had a real logistical advantage. As to feudal soldiers vs legionnaires it was largely a question of equipment. Mounted knights required horse that weren’t available to Rome because selective breeding had yet to produce them. Improvements in metalwork and armor design resulted in far better coverage for the same weight. Knights largely stopped using shields because they didn’t need them as much as they could use a free hand. That said there was a large variation on both sides. Disease, exhaustion etc could also wreck an otherwise capable army.

pasabagi 5y ago
>Rome had a huge empire and could therefore field large armies My feeling is actually that as the empire grew, the armies they could field somewhat declined. When Cannae happened, the Romans were big, but not huge, and they could literally field army after army of professional soldiers. Part of this was demographics (there had been a population boom in Italy) but part of it is economics and state capacity. I would guess that up until really late (like, 1880's) warfare was not that technical, so stuff like 'elan' and 'will' was typically by far the most important characteristic in a soldier. That's at least what generals right up to the first world war tended to prize. When it comes to sheer discipline, bloodymindedness and martial spirit, I don't think anybody would surpass the Romans until the modern era.