Roman Legion question

[BH]

I have a question about Roman legions.

If you had a time machine and could bring a well trained, well disciplined, and battle hardened Roman legion into the future at any point in time after its own time, how far into the future could you go where the Roman legion could fight an army in that future time and still have a reasonable chance of winning.

I ask this because I read how Shaka Zulu was able to fend off the British during the early 1800's with just with what he had through smarts and training and high losses. So it got me thinking about the Romans.

 

[Bronzeage]

It's a fun idea, but against any modern army, they would all be dead in a matter of minutes. The Roman Legion's strength was in it's rigid discipline. This covered everything from battle formations to camp latrines.

The only modern army which could rival the Romans would be the Japanese Imperial Army of the 20th century. They didn't do too well against well equipped opponents, even when willing to charge into machine gun fire.

As for Shaka Zulu, his troops outnumbered the British by a factor of 10, in most situations. This was enough to balance the superior technology of the Europeans, until the repeating rifle became a practical infantry weapon. After that, it was a matter of having more bullets than Zulu warriors, and being out numbered was not the problem it once was.

 

[Keith&Co.]

"Ranks of Bronze," by David Drake.

Aliens need mercenaries, so they abduct a Roman Legion. They make them immortal and set them to fight battles across the galaxy.

 

[rjh01]

I suggest King Richard the Lion heart would have been about the first to be equal to the Romans. He had good men. But best of all he had better equipment. The men wore armour that could stop arrows. So they were the first not to carry shields. Instead they had bigger weapons. Like a sword that had be used by two hands. Made of iron, not bronze as per the Romans.

 

[bilby]

I suggest King Richard the Lion heart would have been about the first to be equal to the Romans. He had good men. But best of all he had better equipment. The men wore armour that could stop arrows. So they were the first not to carry shields. Instead they had bigger weapons. Like a sword that had be used by two hands. Made of iron, not bronze as per the Romans.

The Romans had iron swords. The gladius was an iron sword, and the pilum was iron tipped - indeed it relied completely on an iron shank tempered to a lower hardness than its tip for its effectiveness; when thrown, it deformed on impact, so enemies couldn't get the same effect by throwing it back at the Roman legionaries.

The Romans used a variety of materials for their armour, including in more expensive cases, iron; although iron was expensive, so bronze and leather were also used extensively.

The Romans are practically defined by their use of iron; and their period is known as the Iron Age, as both they and their enemies used iron weapons and tools extensively.

 

[iolo]

As time went on, Roman legions were too expensive for the society they lived in, so the numbers dropped off heavily; they (the Army) got too powerful, so it wasn't possible for the society to develop; Romans ceased to be prepared to die, so they were made up of foreigners; other people's learned better tactics. Military formations (the phalanx, for instance), belong to certain kinds of societies ands cannot outlive them.

 

[Sarpedon]

I doubt the Romans would have done very well against the armies of the Han, from their own time. They did badly enough against the Persians. I agree that the strength of the Roman Army had everything to do with discipline and the strength of the Roman state. Whenever they came up against a state that was as well organized as them (rarely) they didn't do so well.

If you transported the romans forwards in time, they probably would have done well up to the high middle ages. What advances in metallurgy there were would have been undermined by the lack of organized state structure, and the Romans would have won against any nation of the period. With the high middle ages and the development of knights with heavier armor, stirrups and the introduction of the crossbow, the javelin-chucking legionairres would have had a rough time. I think Valois France could have easily defeated anything Rome could have thrown at her, unless vastly outnumbered.

 

[Sarpedon]

And after some checking: The Han would have blown the Romans out of the water. Their technology and organization were so far ahead it was almost unreal. No need to go into the future.

 

[iolo]

I doubt the Romans would have done very well against the armies of the Han, from their own time. They did badly enough against the Persians. I agree that the strength of the Roman Army had everything to do with discipline and the strength of the Roman state. Whenever they came up against a state that was as well organized as them (rarely) they didn't do so well.

If you transported the romans forwards in time, they probably would have done well up to the high middle ages. What advances in metallurgy there were would have been undermined by the lack of organized state structure, and the Romans would have won against any nation of the period. With the high middle ages and the development of knights with heavier armor, stirrups and the introduction of the crossbow, the javelin-chucking legionairres would have had a rough time. I think Valois France could have easily defeated anything Rome could have thrown at her, unless vastly outnumbered.

What about the stirrup? Roman cavalry was crap. The key point about the Romans was that they had a full-time professional army of some size, which was rare until comparatively modern times, and without constant expansion, rarely affordable.

 

[Sarpedon]

I mentioned the stirrup. Well disciplined infantry can defeat cavalry.

The Romans could have afforded a standing army, after Augustus reduced it once he consolidated his power. Their financial problems later stemmed from tax farming and exemptions for rich landowners.

 

[J842P]

I doubt the Romans would have done very well against the armies of the Han, from their own time. They did badly enough against the Persians. I agree that the strength of the Roman Army had everything to do with discipline and the strength of the Roman state. Whenever they came up against a state that was as well organized as them (rarely) they didn't do so well.

If you transported the romans forwards in time, they probably would have done well up to the high middle ages. What advances in metallurgy there were would have been undermined by the lack of organized state structure, and the Romans would have won against any nation of the period. With the high middle ages and the development of knights with heavier armor, stirrups and the introduction of the crossbow, the javelin-chucking legionairres would have had a rough time. I think Valois France could have easily defeated anything Rome could have thrown at her, unless vastly outnumbered.

What about the stirrup? Roman cavalry was crap. The key point about the Romans was that they had a full-time professional army of some size, which was rare until comparatively modern times, and without constant expansion, rarely affordable.

Roman cavalry was not great, but the Empire started using foreign cavalry units. The late Empire even had equites cataphractarii, modeled on the Persian cataphracts. The Romans had a great capacity for absorbing technologies and methods that worked against them. Indeed, the early Roman infantry were essentially modeled on the spear-armed Greek hoplite. It wasn't until after they fought the Celtiberians in the 3rd century that they picked up the "Roman gladius," which is actually the gladius hispaniensis, i.e. the Hispanic sword.

 

[iolo]

What about the stirrup? Roman cavalry was crap. The key point about the Romans was that they had a full-time professional army of some size, which was rare until comparatively modern times, and without constant expansion, rarely affordable.

Roman cavalry was not great, but the Empire started using foreign cavalry units. The late Empire even had equites cataphractarii, modeled on the Persian cataphracts. The Romans had a great capacity for absorbing technologies and methods that worked against them. Indeed, the early Roman infantry were essentially modeled on the spear-armed Greek hoplite. It wasn't until after they fought the Celtiberians in the 3rd century that they picked up the "Roman gladius," which is actually the gladius hispaniensis, i.e. the Hispanic sword.

From before Augustus the legions served their generals, not the state, and the more they used foreign troops the less they could be relied on. By the time of the collapse of the Western Empire they were largely foreign. and the Eastern provinces of post-Roman Britain became 'England' because the German mercenaries broke their deal with the authorities there. Military government is rarely efficient, and foreign, mercenary military government destroys the State.