Here's why the romans will defeat the british:
First, single issues:
Counters to Longbowmen:
- Roman artillerey, battlefield dominating and decimating especially against archers and cavalry (See the battle of Seleukia, Avidius Cassius commanding).
- I'd love to see Longbowmen trying to hit parthian auxillia
- Testudo
- not many longbowmen around, and hard to replace. One dead legionnairy? Just call on a vexillation from the eastern provinces. One dead longbowman? Good luck trying to find a replacement.
Armour:
- Armour was a scarce supply in medieval times, and no matter how you want to phrase it, most men at arms could only afford leather armour, or at best mail. None which would likely stand up to a pila (see the field trials by Prof. Junkelmann) or a plumbatae/martzobouboli shower. The roman mail was of high quality, and the scutum is basically superior to any other shield, and perfectly suited for the roman way of fighting.
Cavalry charges:
There are numerous defenses against a cavalry charge. Contrary to common belief, the roman army was able to outmaneuver heavy cavalry quite often, attack them with special weapons designed against them (like those used by the troops of Aurelian), or simply sow the ground before their feet with caltrops. Every single one of these tactics are pretty unused in the medieval times and wil shock the english.
Other roman advantages:
- highly professional and disciplined army, which has had several years of fighting experience, and in which every single legionnairy is heavily armoured.
- superior siegecraft on part of the roman army. See Jerusalem, Carthage, Ctesiphon, Massada.
- political unity, unlike the english.
- superior logistics. This is an empire which was able to supply a force of 4-8 legions + Auxillia (30-80.000 men) several hundreds of miles away from their heartland capital. Just look at the campaigns in Judea and Britain. Especially the campaign against Judea.
- Superior tactics (Good luck trying to get an english medieval army to change formation 180°)
- Superior unit cohesion and discipline: For example, the roman legions annihilated in Teutoburg forest fought on for over three days despite being ambushed and loosing their supply train early in the attack. They did not break. Another example: When the praetorian guards were stripped of their standards, many immediately committed suicide.
Plus, the great game winners:
- Luxury of choosing when to attack. British fleet, meet superior Roman fleet (at least in numbers) armed with Greek fire.
- Ability to plan a seperate combined arms operation. For example, during the second parthian war the romans attacked in three seperate columms (each 2 Legions and about 12-20.000 strong) Each was supplied by its own logistics train, and each achieved its objective.
- Numbers. Each single roman legion outnumbered the english army at crecy and agincourt. Rome can mobilize up to 80.000 men for a war in a faraway country. England can do nothing of the sort.
The romans will therefore most likely strike with two or three seperate columms. Even if the smaller (most medieval armies were only 3600-8000 men strong) and desperately outnumbered british somehow manage to defeat one columm (which is ridiculous considering that the roman cavalry of such a columm outnumbers the british alone), they never have the logistic ability nor the speed to catch the other one (roman marching speed: 24-36 miles a day). Additionally, roman spies will sow dissent among the english lords (to view their effectiveness, consider the british in 42 and the armenians during the 2nd and 3rd centuries), there is no reason not to suppose they will be equally effective.
Britain will once again become a roman province.
Brianeyci wrote:Anyway I am wondering how the Roman shield would do against those arrows and whether testudo would be effective.
The Roman scutum was made out of oak, and longbows could apparently pierce through oak at short distances. I am however quite certain that a longbow arrow who had piereced through the scutum would certainly have a hard time against the lorica segmentata or the lorica hamata.
Also would the knights charge into a wall of Roman legions in testudo steadily advancing.
Seeing that the persian clibninarii did not manage to do that, I see no reason why the lighter armoured knights should do that. (A clibinarios had - besides being wearing full-body plate or scale armour also a massively armoured horse)
Would Roman legions break at the sight of knight and rain of arrows.
Definitely not at the sight. If they had no artillery support (unlikely), were ambushed (giving the dismal ablility the english displayed with ambushes during the 14th century equally unlikely), or had been in battle for several hours taking heavy casualties (maybe, but why risk battle if you have the superior artillery and siegecraft) they might, I repeat, might flee. However, to my knowledge there are no instances of legionnaires fleeing before an outnumbered enemy.
Finally can Roman siege equipment defeat castles, and assuming Rome is on the offense, can medieval armies defeat Roman base camps at night.
Roman siegecraft defeated Massada, Carthage and Tunis, while medieval siegecraft accomplished nothing comparable ("Greek fire"). To defeat Roman basecamps the heavily outnumbered english army would have to be able to build superior siegecraft (trebuchet etc) and keep the romans from destroying those. THis takes time the English do not have. Nevermind the fact that for a night attack you need an extremely disciplined army. Even the roman army shied away from night battles, and the britishs levels of discipline is not up to the romans.
.
However, historians place the majority of those taxes at 72 AD, whereas Sueton gives no date. One such example includes the fiscus judaeis. Also, the census for the new taxes was held in 73/74 AD, during which the pecunia non olet conversation took place. The reconstruction of the capitol also started already in 70. My sources for this are the books by Professor K. Christ and M. Clauss. You can find a summary of an older work here: 