The Roman Empire Vs Medieval England

[Zor]

Lets say the entire British Archipelago as of 1337 is sucked up and transported back in time to 70AD, a time when the Roman Empire rules the Mediterranean and more than half of Europe and commands dozens of Legions. Edward the III, needless to say desires to overthrow this pagan state that has replaced Christendom and readies his armies for war. As well, Vespasian is mad as hell that he lost a tax-paying province (although let’s say the Romans that were in Britain beforehand were moved to Gaul).

What will be the Impact the English have on the Romans, will Rome fall a Hundred years Early or will the Legions reclaim the lost land?

Zor

EDIT, Fixed the mislabled date

[Zac Naloen]

I'm pretty sure england would get its arse kicked, for reasons including being severely out numbered. England was by no means a major player in the middle ages.

[Bounty]

I think you meant 70 *AD*. In BC, Cicero was still had his hands

[Zor]

I think you meant 70 *AD*. In BC, Cicero was still had his hands

Yes, fixed it.

Zor

[Dartzap]

Is the date of 1337 meant to be a joke? lol Englander is teh Leet?

[LordShaithis]

Well I suppose the Channel will be signifigant as in just about every war England ever fought. There was no Royal Navy back in 1337. What sort of ships will England have available to keep the Romans from invading?

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

The English have longbows, stirrups, knights, lances, and all manner of implements of war that far outstrip anything the Romans can bring to the table.

Legions, ironically being as well-equipped as they are, lack a significant number of spearmen. Entire cohorts will collapse, scatter, and disintegrate under the might of charging armored horses and the fully-armored knights leading them. Rains of death in the form of bodkin arrows will finish off whatever the knights can't deal with as well (namely, spear-equipped formations like auxillia legions, militia, etc).

[Zor]

Is the date of 1337 meant to be a joke? lol Englander is teh Leet?

The "leetness" of the year i chose is strictly coincidental, that was the first year of the Hundred years War.

Zor

[Big Phil]

The real question here is one of logistics, rather than tactics. Historically the English were only able to mobilize armies of 15,000 men for short periods of time, larger armies for much less time. By comparison the Romans were professional soldiers with excellent logistics, command and control, and skilled and creative tacticians. English equipment and technology of the 14th century is certainly superior to anything the Romans can bring to the table, but whereas the English could only mobilize for short periods of time, the Romans have very large standing armies, and could simply outlast the English and wait for them to begin to starve.

Regarding heavy cavalry, I've never seen a reputable source claim that heavy cavalry successfully charged lines of men with spears or swords. Generally, the infantry sees the cavalry charging and breaks, opening gaps in the line or allowing cavalrymen to pick out individual footmen. Horses simply will not charge headfirst into a wall of men. Assuming the infantry stood fast, the cavalry charge usually stopped before it reached the infantry wall, and the horsemen and footmen would trade blows at close range. If somebody has a source that can claim otherwise, I'd be curious to see it, but of all the books I've read over the years, not one ever seriously claimed that cavalry charges crashed into heavily armed footmen as a regular tactic.

[Straha]

While if there were a war the question would be one of Logistics (and thus heavilly in the Romans favour. They'll just keep sending legions if they get beat untill Edward is militarilly exhausted or defeated) the real question should actually be if there would be a war. Roman Britain was, according to most scholarship nowadays, an immense money drain. If there was no overt reason to go to war the Empire might very well be content to just have a new trading partner who would, de facto if not de jure eventually, be a protectorate of the Empire benefitting the Empire itself with no real economic drain on the Imperial Coffers. Further Edward, in 1337, was not yet "King of France" and would thus have no legitimate claim on the land to "defend." Further he would not have the Holy Roman Empire to finance a war in Gaul or Iberia and would thus be unable to raise an army to invade Rome. Finally, he would still have an enemy in the North in the Scots which would probably pose an even greater problem now that he doesn't have foreign creditors to prop him up. Most likley he'd probably be stuck trying to ally himself with the Romans in order to get support, both financially and militarilly, to hold off the Scots.

This is of course assuming no uppity English noble pulls anything on Edward with this change in circumstances which would make things even worse for England.

EDIT: Typo and clarification.

[Wanderer]

Esponage of English docuements ought to be fun and a place of refuge or just a place to dump Christians might appeal as well.

[Frank Hipper]

Well I suppose the Channel will be signifigant as in just about every war England ever fought. There was no Royal Navy back in 1337. What sort of ships will England have available to keep the Romans from invading?

Cogs and early hulks.
Private ship-owners of the time were required by law to offer their ships for Royal service in time of war, in lieu of a standing navy.

The medieval cog would have made an interesting opponent for Roman warships ; the introduction of the cog to the Mediterranean in 1307 as a pirate ship influenced Genoa, Pisa, Venice et al to abandon their lateen rigged round ships and adopt it almost exclusively.
The Italian maritime states defended their merchant shipping with galleys that can show no specific advantages or disadvantages to Roman varieties beyond their smaller size, in particular cases.
Not all Roman warships were neccessarily larger than medieval galleys, or vice-versa.

The freeboard of a cog would have made it a very difficult opponent for the Romans in their favored boarding tactics, corvus or no; whether or not Medieval clinker-built ships offered the same resistance to ramming attacks that Julius Ceasar witnessed in Celtic ships of his time is another question, with no answer beyond pure speculation.

However, Roman numbers and organisation would probably have been a nearly insurmountable hurdle for any hopes of English success at sea.

[Straha]

Well I suppose the Channel will be signifigant as in just about every war England ever fought. There was no Royal Navy back in 1337. What sort of ships will England have available to keep the Romans from invading?

The freeboard of a cog would have made it a very difficult opponent for the Romans in their favored boarding tactics, corvus or no; whether or not Medieval clinker-built ships offered the same resistance to ramming attacks that Julius Ceasar witnessed in Celtic ships of his time is another question, with no answer beyond pure speculation.

The Corvus was a temporary innovation used during the First Punic War, and was ditched before its conclusion apparently because it made Roman ships a bitch to handle during storms causing the loss of a number of fleets rendering victories over Carthage a moot point. As such there's no chance of encountering the Corvus at sea, especially during the Empire. However odds are a Sea Battle just wouldn't arise, if Rome decided to invade Britain they'd gather their army, and shoot across as soon as the wind let them. Probably the same for Britain (assuming they could get their hands on enough money to raise/provision a fleet... which is a big assumption) if they decided to invade Rome.

[Enigma]

what if logistics weren't a problem and the England had enough gold to wage whatever war they want? How far could they possibly expand and still be able to defend their lands?

[Straha]

what if logistics weren't a problem and the England had enough gold to wage whatever war they want? How far could they possibly expand and still be able to defend their lands?

Assuming you magicked away the supply nightmare and the monatery and England was expansionist England would fight like it didn't have any supply or monetary restrictions. What sort of answer do you expect to get?

[Enigma]

what if logistics weren't a problem and the England had enough gold to wage whatever war they want? How far could they possibly expand and still be able to defend their lands?

Assuming you magicked away the supply nightmare and the monatery and England was expansionist England would fight like it didn't have any supply or monetary restrictions. What sort of answer do you expect to get?

How far could their existing army go? Would they be able to defeat the Romans\Gauls\whoever are in their way until they cannot expand further without stretching themselves too thin? Let us assume they were smart and took enough supplies to last throughout their campaign.

[Superman]

I have actually thought of this before, and I always just assumed Rome would kick ass. Roman soldiers had superior training, no? Technologically, I don't think England was any better off than Rome...

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

I have actually thought of this before, and I always just assumed Rome would kick ass. Roman soldiers had superior training, no? Technologically, I don't think England was any better off than Rome...

The others have covered logistics better than I could have, but as I said: Longbows, barding, stirrups, lances, bodkin arrows...

Roman legionaries and auxilia likely have a much higher standard of training and discipline than Joe Conscript, but longbowmen train nearly their entire lives with their weapon, and a fearsome weapon it was. That does not even get into knights, the socio-political and military elite of medieval armies. They have superb training in every imaginable aspect of martial combat and the arsenal to utilize it.

[Straha]

what if logistics weren't a problem and the England had enough gold to wage whatever war they want? How far could they possibly expand and still be able to defend their lands?

Assuming you magicked away the supply nightmare and the monatery and England was expansionist England would fight like it didn't have any supply or monetary restrictions. What sort of answer do you expect to get?

How far could their existing army go? Would they be able to defeat the Romans\Gauls\whoever are in their way until they cannot expand further without stretching themselves too thin? Let us assume they were smart and took enough supplies to last throughout their campaign.

...

You don't get it.

Let me illustrate what you are asking. "Suppose Mexico had enough money to raise a massive army and invaded America, and didn't have to worry about supplying their troops while they did it. What would happen?" THis is essentially what you're asking. And there can be no realistic answer because there is no realism left in the scenario. So the only answer you can reasonably get is that England would be about as succesful as England would be if it didn't have to worry about Logistics and didn't have a constraint on its army's size.

[brianeyci]

I don't see why some people are considering it an unfair advantage that the Romans have more numbers and somehow want to make it "ignore logistics" (whatever the hell that means). The Romans were a professonal army and surely that has to be taken into consideration.

Anyway I am wondering how the Roman shield would do against those arrows and whether testudo would be effective. Also would the knights charge into a wall of Roman legions in testudo steadily advancing. Would Roman legions break at the sight of knight and rain of arrows. Finally can Roman siege equipment defeat castles, and assuming Rome is on the offense, can medieval armies defeat Roman base camps at night.

[Lord Woodlouse]

I have actually thought of this before, and I always just assumed Rome would kick ass. Roman soldiers had superior training, no? Technologically, I don't think England was any better off than Rome...

Mate, this is one thousand three hundred years in Rome's future. The English of the time have technological and doctrinal advantages in essentially every field and as mentioned the core body of the English army is going to be very well trained and disciplined, quite capable of fighting in organised formation.

As I said in the SB version of this thread I reckon initial Roman attempts get rebuffed, the technological advantages of the English army means it can fight off a potentially larger force fairly decisively (as they did often in the Hundred Years War, where it's worth bearing in mind France had ten times the population of England). Though I'd be surprised if the Romans don't learn from initial losses, I think they'd feel bloodied enough to take a step back (Rome outmatched the Germanic barbarians but they never rolled up their sleeves to move in and conquer the place after the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest). England no doubt takes control of the Pict-Scot barbarian lands of the north. England has no chance in hell of mounting an invasion of Europe, so long as they keep their brains in the heads I don't see them even trying.

I kinda see the Kingdom of England forming a peace after initial attempts by Rome. Rome would need to seriously mobilise to take England down and doing so would no doubt make them too weak on other fronts to be worth the bother unless seriously provoked.

[Wanderer]

So Harry Turtledove was wanking off his ass in the Videsso's cycle when the Romans simply closed ranks and had the front ranks point their pila at the horses of the Namdeleni heavy cavalry, while the rear ranks aimed for the horses with their pila. Supporting Arms also assisted with arrows.

This is the same tactics the legions used against the Alaans' cavalry by the way in real life.

I can agree about the Long Bow men to an extent, but cavalry I have a hard time buying unless you can show the above is wank by historians.

[Lord Woodlouse]

So Harry Turtledove was wanking off his ass in the Videsso's cycle when the Romans simply closed ranks and had the front ranks point their pila at the horses of the Namdeleni heavy cavalry, while the rear ranks aimed for the horses with their pila. Supporting Arms also assisted with arrows.

This is the same tactics the legions used against the Alaans' cavalry by the way in real life.

I can agree about the Long Bow men to an extent, but cavalry I have a hard time buying unless you can show the above is wank by historians.

Any military unit is only as good as the commander who utilises them, and charging spearmen head-on is typically regarded as a poor way to utilise them. But Parthia made good use of heavy cavalry (and cavalry archers) against Rome, winning many victories.

EDIT: Essentially you use the longbowmen to disrupt the Roman formation (archers rarely outright win battles on their own), followed by heavy cavalry to sweep in.

[Frank Hipper]

You know, guns were becoming pretty well established by 1337, too. They'd evolved beyond the prototypical vase-shaped bolt throwers and were becoming something we'd recognise as cannon.

However, what use they'd be in defense is an open question. Or maybe not so open...

[Wanderer]

Lord Woodlouse, thanks for clearing that up. I thought you were of the Heavy Cavalry will sweep them away and thats that line of reasoning which is why I used the confused emoticon.