# "Romans" v "Renaissance"



## Toby Frost (Apr 24, 2022)

I am currently writing a fantasy novel in which, thanks to magic, an army of generic Imperial "Romans" suddenly faces off against an equally-sized army of generic "Renaissance soldiers". This is in a secondary world, so I'm happy to treat both as stereotypes and fudge the details, even though in reality both sides would have varied hugely during the relevant periods. It's pretty silly, but interesting: how well would superior Roman discipline fare against a unit of mercenary handgunners? Could a big shield fend off a pike? 

I've come to my own conclusions as to who wins (I reckon you could rig the story either way without it becoming outrageously unfeasible), but I'm just wondering whether I've missed some obvious factor in the battle.


----------



## Oochillyo (Apr 24, 2022)

hey Toby Frost  how are you 

This sound really cool and fun , not sure about Renaissance Soldiers, like what they had at the time ect , just thinking though I'm not expert but I am pretty sure the shields will be fine against pikes and two The Romans had the Turtle defense plan right so that could be a big factor to consider, though if these Renaissance Soldiers had any cannons ect they Romans would be smashed.

Its your story and however close or far to reality you wanna take it at times is absolutely fine  probs the more fantasy with the realism the more fun if you keep certain parts grounded in reality but its up to you as I say  I wanted to give you some perspective on reality in case that's useful to you and the story. 

Have fun with it these sounds like a really cool idea like extracting different people ect from different points in time and having them clash, yes not a brand new idea but I like the sound of your idea and I'm sure your own take on things will be awesome 

Good luck take care hugs 

Regards - Declan Sargent


----------



## sciwriterPark (Apr 24, 2022)

I think it might depend on what period of Romans we are talking about. And are you taking into account late Eastern Romans or are you just talking about post Marian reform Roman army at its height

The only other thing I would consider is that the Romans defeated the Macedonian/Greek pike formation so they would have a good chance at defeating any pike formation. The question is how much shock will the firearms provide.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Apr 24, 2022)

Assuming you are talking about 'traditional' Republic and Early Imperial Romans...

Well, the Romans could have difficulties with a determined pike phalanx, although generally speaking, their more flexible manipular system could take advantage of a large mass of spearmen, as the phalanxes of the ancient world were not the sophisticated pike and shot formations or the famous (and very difficult to beat) Spanish tercio. Yes, other ancients could be determined and could rout Romans, but it was very difficult to be flexible in a huge phalanx. Hence general Roman success against them. 

But I'd think the Romans would definitely struggle with a full Tercio or two, especially getting a face full of shot every so often. (Also such units would/could also have swordsmen with bucklers and javelins.) The renaissance armies were well-drilled units that knew they had to rely on each other* and were in practiced and reasonably flexible formations. One also has to point out that the reason we have pikes and heavy infantry in renaissance armies was to counter cavalry. And I don't think Roman cavalry would last a minute against Renaissance cavalry. When their horseman had been removed, I don't see the Romans being in a good situation.

==============

* I know you said 'mercenary gunners' but 1) mercenary would mean professional and trained 2) No renaissance army would just be gunners. Such an army would be easily run over by a cavalry charge, only getting off perhaps a volley in retaliation.


----------



## The Big Peat (Apr 24, 2022)

I'd mostly trust whichever side had the most food, soldiers, and good leaders in general. But that aside, I'm inclined to agree that renaissance cavalry would be an absolute pain for the legions, even if I'd probably back the legions in straight infantry on infantry depending on the period of firearm. If we're talking something slow loading, I don't think it'd stop the legions from flanking the pikes.


----------



## THX1138 (Apr 25, 2022)

And don't forget that the Romans would have catapults and maybe even some basilicas as well.
Their strategies would also change too. Each side would learn and adapt from the other in order to exploit any weakness found or take on any strength that the other had that could be used. 

The formation of the Roman Turtle defense could be changed and employed as a net to trap a Renaissance Calvery charge for example.
They could even change the size and formation of the Turtle to minimize losses from canon fire as well.  

As for firearms, most likely matchlocks I would think. So, the possibility of the Musket men blowing themselves up by accident is a fair chance. Add in a group of Roman slingers, even at a100 yards off, and I would think it would be "Flame On!" for them at some point. And like The Big Peat just said, muzzleloaders are slow to load. While slingers are faster and can do so on the run. 

The different fighting styles and strategies of the two should make this a fun "What If" brain teaser to write and read!


----------



## HareBrain (Apr 25, 2022)

THX1138 said:


> And don't forget that the Romans would have catapults and maybe even some basilicas as well.


Both Romans and Renaissance might have basilicas, but they would be very impractical to bring into battle, weighting many thousands of tons each. If they found a way of dropping one onto an enemy formation, however, it would be devastating.

The Romans might use ballistas, of course.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Apr 25, 2022)

THX1138 said:


> The formation of the Roman Turtle defense could be changed and employed as a net to trap a Renaissance Calvery charge for example.
> They could even change the size and formation of the Turtle to minimize losses from canon fire as well.


I disagree. The Romans went on a 'turtle defence' against cavalry at Carrhae and got massacred. It would be easy to keep the Romans bottled up and you could then ride close to them and just fire pistols into a mass of men. It would be a slaughter. What would the Romans be able to do in response? Hide? It would also give the cavalry plenty of space to go galloping about. No trap at all. Well, a trap for the Romans.

Then it would also make it the best way to _maximise _losses against cannons. Lots of men in extremely tight formations, cheek to jowl. It would be a gunners dream. 

Later on in Napoleonic warfare, they developed infantry squares to combat cavalry, but it was always a race against time before the cannons could be brought up to fire on the square, because they were extremely vulnerable to cannon. A 'turtle' would be utterly destroyed. 

Fair point about the small ballistae & slingers and they would have archers too. But the Renaissance army would also be armoured - heavy plate armour for some, that would be impervious to anything that the Romans could throw at them. Whereas firearms and crossbows, which are slow loading and only effective reasonably close, would both quite easily be able to penetrate the Roman armours.


----------



## Toby Frost (Apr 25, 2022)

I believe dropping a church on your enemy's head is a tactic only encountered in Warhammer 40,000.

These are really interesting replies - thanks everyone! I agree that the "Romans" would have a lot of trouble dealing with Renaissance cavalry. A heavy lance formation (which were going out of favour) might well have been able to break their line, and lighter cavalry with pistols would be a serious danger, especially if they were well-drilled and didn't just charge in. I suspect that Roman heavy weapons would be a lot more effective than cannons, mainly because they'd be easier to aim and deploy.

For "reasons", there isn't really an option for the sides to learn new tactics or destroy each other's supply lines, etc: it's win quickly or die, but both armies would need re-equipping. I suspect that the Romans would be better at this, at least in their own empire.


----------



## Le Panda du Mal (Apr 25, 2022)

If the Romans are late enough they might have Greek Fire which, if deployed well enough, could be sufficiently terrifying and demoralizing to overcome the other technical advantages. On the other hand… renaissance armies had chain shot, didn’t they…


----------



## Montero (Apr 25, 2022)

Two comments from 17th century re-enactment experience

1. An experienced musketeer can reload and fire in 20 to 30 seconds while marching. I've seen it done. I wasn't very experienced (I concentrated on artillery) and I could do it in close to 30 seconds after a few goes while standing still. Period firearms did sometimes blow up - but it tended to be poorly made ones early in their life - so if you had a good gun you hung onto it - and sometimes there was some cautious test firing done before sale. As part of a team of 5 I've certainly reloaded a small cannon in 30 seconds - large ones take a little longer just due to the sheer heft of reaching up to the higher barrel and handling longer, heavier ram rods and the like.

2. A cavalry tactic of the 17th century which is often forgotten, is that they generally didn't do the 18th century charge with swords out - with really well trained horses what they did was ride up in an open row, fire horse pistols into the massed infantry from a reasonable range, wheel round, ride off to re-load and do it again. Not often done in re-enactments that I've seen due to horses taking extreme exception to someone firing a pistol near their ears.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 25, 2022)

Toby Frost said:


> I believe dropping a church on your enemy's head is a tactic only encountered in Warhammer 40,000.
> 
> These are really interesting replies - thanks everyone! I agree that the "Romans" would have a lot of trouble dealing with Renaissance cavalry. A heavy lance formation (which were going out of favour) might well have been able to break their line, and lighter cavalry with pistols would be a serious danger, especially if they were well-drilled and didn't just charge in. I suspect that Roman heavy weapons would be a lot more effective than cannons, mainly because they'd be easier to aim and deploy.
> 
> For "reasons", there isn't really an option for the sides to learn new tactics or destroy each other's supply lines, etc: it's win quickly or die, but both armies would need re-equipping. I suspect that the Romans would be better at this, at least in their own empire.



If this  were a  first and only time situation , The Romans would lose but , even with their limitations and disadvantage ,  would inflict some serious casualties  on this  Renascence  army .  If there was a  subsequent encounter in which the Romans had the opportunity and time  to learn new tactics , and technology  and  combined with their overall organization skills ,  the outcome would be far different.


----------



## The Big Peat (Apr 25, 2022)

Toby Frost said:


> For "reasons", there isn't really an option for the sides to learn new tactics or destroy each other's supply lines, etc: it's win quickly or die, but both armies would need re-equipping. I suspect that the Romans would be better at this, at least in their own empire.



I wonder how many renaissance armies contained a lot of men who actually knew how to make gunpowder. Swords, breastplates, etc.etc. is pretty much even between the two but if the renaissance army can't find gunpowder, it's going to rapidly turn into a fancy version of a Macedonian army based on pikes and horse.

Other possible considerations
- Numbers. The Roman army is probably bigger, just going memory and a quick check of battle sizes.
- Stirrups. Just in case Renaissance cavalry needs even more of an advantage... although that feels like very easily stolen technology.
- War Elephants.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Apr 25, 2022)

The Big Peat said:


> I wonder how many renaissance armies contained a lot of men who actually knew how to make gunpowder. Swords, breastplates, etc.etc. is pretty much even between the two but if the renaissance army can't find gunpowder, it's going to rapidly turn into a fancy version of a Macedonian army based on pikes and horse.
> 
> Other possible considerations
> - Numbers. The Roman army is probably bigger, just going memory and a quick check of battle sizes.
> ...


If it late Renaissance, good quality gunpowder seemed plentiful - I believe gunpowder weapons start to become common around 1350, go forward a hundred and fifty years plus (possibly where OP is placing Renaissance) and you have army units that rely on having arquebus in very large numbers. You can only have that if there is a lot of powder. 

Disagree with the armour - I think 1400-1500 was 'peak armour': essentially you have fully encased knights and high quality plate steel. Other soldiers wouldn't be fully dressed in metal, but a steel breast plate takes the place of a large shield - something the Romans would be struggling to carry about in battle. The traditional Roman tactic of stabbing with swords ain't going to do much - blunt weapons to paralyse then fit knives between armour plates seemed to be the order of the day. 

I think the comparison with the Macedonians is slightly wrong. Pike and shot was organised and disciplined just as well as the Roman manipular system - at least in theory for both sides (sometimes the Romans i.e. Cannae just rushed the enemy with masses of men and expected them to crumble to shear numbers. No subtle use of individual maniples on flanks, or taking advantage of opportunities.) Even if you ran out of gunpowder, you still had the modular approach of pike and sword/buckler units that could position themselves to maximise defence or offence. 

-Numbers. Difficult thing to really compare. If two Roman legions plus auxiliaries turned up - a standard consular army in the Republic - what's that 20,000 men? You're not going to battle with them with a couple of thousand men, you'd build up an army to compete with them. The Imperial Spanish army in our period had something like 47 military units - tercios had about 3000 men, but not all were full tercios, so they probably had 100,000 on call. Add the French, Austrian, English and other nations and I think you could easily compete with peak Roman forces of ~250,000 for the whole empire. 

Stirrups - depends on the nature of the encounter. I mean if the Roman army is routed and wiped out, and no more comes along in the time portal - no amount of learning is going to help it  . If it was some strange 'Empire vs Empire' sort of encounter, sure the Romans might learn - if they captured steel works and gunpowder factories. But it works the other way too - Renaissance armies would learn how the Romans behave and change their tactics also.

War Elephants. Phah! More likely to destroy the army using them than the deployed against.   Cannons would easily stop them. Leave the poor animals alone and stop using them in battle!


----------



## The Big Peat (Apr 25, 2022)

Venusian Broon said:


> If it late Renaissance, good quality gunpowder seemed plentiful - I believe gunpowder weapons start to become common around 1350, go forward a hundred and fifty years plus (possibly where OP is placing Renaissance) and you have army units that rely on having arquebus in very large numbers. You can only have that if there is a lot of powder.
> 
> Disagree with the armour - I think 1400-1500 was 'peak armour': essentially you have fully encased knights and high quality plate steel. Other soldiers wouldn't be fully dressed in metal, but a steel breast plate takes the place of a large shield - something the Romans would be struggling to carry about in battle. The traditional Roman tactic of stabbing with swords ain't going to do much - blunt weapons to paralyse then fit knives between armour plates seemed to be the order of the day.



Depends where it is innit. If both sides have normal supply, this is moot. If they don't - and I don't quite know what Tobes has in mind for this idea, but it seems possible - then gunpowder supply is possibly a huge Achilles heel. If swords exist both can find them, if armour exists both can find it, but gunpowder is a big swing.

And re arms and armour comparison - fully armoured late medieval/early renaissance knights would indeed pose a problem, but I think it's fair to note that the overlap between them and effective pike/shot formations is slim, and it's unlikely they'd face both.

As for fighting them - smack them with shields, lever a short sword in. Not ideal but doable.



> I think the comparison with the Macedonians is slightly wrong. Pike and shot was organised and disciplined just as well as the Roman manipular system - at least in theory for both sides (sometimes the Romans i.e. Cannae just rushed the enemy with masses of men and expected them to crumble to shear numbers. No subtle use of individual maniples on flanks, or taking advantage of opportunities.) Even if you ran out of gunpowder, you still had the modular approach of pike and sword/buckler units that could position themselves to maximise defence or offence.



Depends when. Pre-Tercio, no. Tercio, also no, because it was beat by Dutch forces using Roman maniple tactics. Said Dutch forces, yes but the effectiveness of muskets means there's hardly any sword dudes. Best of all worlds, yeah, but that's a little mean.



> -Numbers. Difficult thing to really compare. If two Roman legions plus auxiliaries turned up - a standard consular army in the Republic - what's that 20,000 men? You're not going to battle with them with a couple of thousand men, you'd build up an army to compete with them. The Imperial Spanish army in our period had something like 47 military units - tercios had about 3000 men, but not all were full tercios, so they probably had 100,000 on call. Add the French, Austrian, English and other nations and I think you could easily compete with peak Roman forces of ~250,000 for the whole empire.



I assume the scenario is an averagely sized army for each finds themselves facing each other suddenly with no time to reinforce, recruit, or ally (a Roman speciality). If wrong, this is moot... If not, it matters.



> Stirrups - depends on the nature of the encounter. I mean if the Roman army is routed and wiped out, and no more comes along in the time portal - no amount of learning is going to help it  . If it was some strange 'Empire vs Empire' sort of encounter, sure the Romans might learn - if they captured steel works and gunpowder factories. But it works the other way too - Renaissance armies would learn how the Romans behave and change their tactics also.



I feel like you could steal and replicate the technology in a few weeks? Dunno if there's a training element.



> War Elephants. Phah! More likely to destroy the army using them than the deployed against.   Cannons would easily stop them. Leave the poor animals alone and stop using them in battle!



No


----------



## Venusian Broon (Apr 25, 2022)

The Big Peat said:


> Depends where it is innit. If both sides have normal supply, this is moot. If they don't - and I don't quite know what Tobes has in mind for this idea, but it seems possible - then gunpowder supply is possibly a huge Achilles heel. If swords exist both can find them, if armour exists both can find it, but gunpowder is a big swing.




Again depends on how far you want to 'replicate' either side in this theoretical fight. If you are arguing that Roman logistics might be a positive - it might - but say that the Renaissance side didn't have access to what I would assume would be part of their normal logistics, the availability of gunpowder, then it is 'fair'?  If you are giving the Romans their camp followers, doctors, engineers and blacksmiths, that I think they had, surely the other side had something similar backing them up to make them as effective as possible on the battlefield. 



The Big Peat said:


> And re arms and armour comparison - fully armoured late medieval/early renaissance knights would indeed pose a problem, but I think it's fair to note that the overlap between them and effective pike/shot formations is slim, and it's unlikely they'd face both.
> 
> As for fighting them - smack them with shields, lever a short sword in. Not ideal but doable.



You still need to get in close enough to get a short sword in - which means your own line is going to be broken up. And if you get close in I'm sure there be some halberd or billhook men looking to cut you down. However, if the pike line is messed up and you get significant numbers beyond the tips, the pikes are in trouble, of course. That is pretty much universal for any time period. 



The Big Peat said:


> Depends when. Pre-Tercio, no. Tercio, also no, because it was beat by Dutch forces using Roman maniple tactics. Said Dutch forces, yes but the effectiveness of muskets means there's hardly any sword dudes. Best of all worlds, yeah, but that's a little mean.



It's the time period - it's big. They started with sword and bucklers and then over the years they were phased out for guns. 

Anyway, I'd argue that tercio or pike and shot is 'manipular' anyway (I'm sure I'll be flamed down for saying that - I'm not a authoritative source  ): these men had to remain in quite complex formations and respond to terrain, enemy and orders to maximise their firing and defensive capabilities. Not saying it always worked, but then neither did the Roman legion.





The Big Peat said:


> I assume the scenario is an averagely sized army for each finds themselves facing each other suddenly with no time to reinforce, recruit, or ally (a Roman speciality). If wrong, this is moot... If not, it matters.



I have no stats, but army sizes for 'normal' campaigns look about equal  - about 20,000 for a full strength consular army, and similar for Renaissance forces. *But* I do think that the Romans could produce a large number of said armies or expand given the threat or opportunity, better than the latter societies of the Renaissance - see Hannibal for example. Essentially this was the factor that won them their empire - tapping into a very large manpower pool effectively. 





The Big Peat said:


> I feel like you could steal and replicate the technology in a few weeks? Dunno if there's a training element.



Really depends on what we're thinking about. A one-off battle or decades of having ding-dongs and many scraps. The Romans responded quite quickly against the Parthians and started the development of horse archers and cataphractarii to counter them pretty soon. They would probably have done the same against Renaissance units, either nicking them and developing their own, or looking for counters. (Just not flaming pigs or bizarre wagons against Elephants. Not their greatest technological moment, for the Romans then.) 

But the Renaissance armies wouldn't be standing still either. Just saying.


----------



## THX1138 (Apr 25, 2022)

Venusian Broon said:


> I disagree. The Romans went on a 'turtle defence' against cavalry at Carrhae and got massacred. It would be easy to keep the Romans bottled up and you could then ride close to them and just fire pistols into a mass of men. It would be a slaughter. What would the Romans be able to do in response? Hide? It would also give the cavalry plenty of space to go galloping about. No trap at all. Well, a trap for the Romans.
> 
> Then it would also make it the best way to _maximise _losses against cannons. Lots of men in extremely tight formations, cheek to jowl. It would be a gunners dream.
> 
> ...


I see your point. Roman armor would be cut apart for sure. It would come down to tactics then.

After doing some looking up on other sites and boards, it seems to be 50/50 in views.
One thing I did find that seems to be agreed on is if it Roman vs English, The Romans have a good chance of winning. If it is Roman vs French, the French would win in a heart beat in a unplanned head on battle.

But if the Romans had time to fortify and assess the French, it would be a brutal fight on both sides, at which point it comes down to the better tactics.

Battles are a chess game, with each side having their own pieces and rules of play.


----------



## The Big Peat (Apr 25, 2022)

Venusian Broon said:


> Again depends on how far you want to 'replicate' either side in this theoretical fight. If you are arguing that Roman logistics might be a positive - it might - but say that the Renaissance side didn't have access to what I would assume would be part of their normal logistics, the availability of gunpowder, then it is 'fair'?  If you are giving the Romans their camp followers, doctors, engineers and blacksmiths, that I think they had, surely the other side had something similar backing them up to make them as effective as possible on the battlefield.
> 
> You still need to get in close enough to get a short sword in - which means your own line is going to be broken up. And if you get close in I'm sure there be some halberd or billhook men looking to cut you down. However, if the pike line is messed up and you get significant numbers beyond the tips, the pikes are in trouble, of course. That is pretty much universal for any time period.
> 
> ...



Well, a lot of this boils down to what Toby's imagining. Are they lost? Getting stuff from home through a portal? One invading the other? So much of it depends on the fine details - and also what he's thinking of as typical. As you mention, the Romans had their own cataphractarii and horse archers at points... a Roman army with strong horse archer support vs a late period renaissance army where the infantry isn't as heavily armoured could cause problems. But that's not typical? Ton of variables and throwing stuff out. But on a few specifics

- Tercios, iirc, while capable of deploying companies and very disciplined, were built around the big 'castle-like' formations, and certainly were eventually beaten by more small unit tactics. Perhaps they could have fought that way, but their SOP was very much along those lines, and I think in a lot of ways a Roman legion vs Macedonian phalanx analogy is accurate based on what we know. Question is does the Macedonians having muskets radically change things?

- I haven't done a ton of research to re-affirm my memory but iirc there's a lot of Renaissance battles with only 10k a side. Where you looking for sizes?

-And yeah, what I described for the Romans means a broken-ish line... but I think to an extent that's natural. And if you're talking infantry, then I think most infantry in this period aren't armoured beyond a breastplate and helmet? Which makes stabbing a lot easier.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Apr 25, 2022)

The Big Peat said:


> - Tercios, iirc, while capable of deploying companies and very disciplined, were built around the big 'castle-like' formations, and certainly were eventually beaten by more small unit tactics. Perhaps they could have fought that way, but their SOP was very much along those lines, and I think in a lot of ways a Roman legion vs Macedonian phalanx analogy is accurate based on what we know. Question is does the Macedonians having muskets radically change things?



I think they were still more flexible than the 'anvil' that was the Macedonian phalanx. Once they were committed to either outshove the other side, or wait for their cavalry to hit the back, they were essentially just a big muscular mass, holding the enemy 'in place'. Yeah, you will certainly find similar situations on European battlefields in the late Medieval/Renaissance period where that happens, but in other battles the flexibility and offensive qualities of tercio were paramount.



The Big Peat said:


> - I haven't done a ton of research to re-affirm my memory but iirc there's a lot of Renaissance battles with only 10k a side. Where you looking for sizes?



I just picked a few from memory and looked them up on wikipedia - 20k per side seemed about average. It certainly seems a size commanders could easily handle for the time. The thing also is that the 20k size of a consular army was its theoretical maximum. I believe that usually it varied and was lower. As you know it is difficult effectively estimating most army sizes pre 18th century or so!



The Big Peat said:


> -And yeah, what I described for the Romans means a broken-ish line... but I think to an extent that's natural. And if you're talking infantry, then I think most infantry in this period aren't armoured beyond a breastplate and helmet? Which makes stabbing a lot easier.



Depends what you try to stab, or were trained to stab. I always get the idea that they went for the torso, so a breast plate would be a good defence.

=====

As you can probably tell I am going for a Renaissance win on a straight one-on-one in the battlefield. Not saying that a Roman army couldn't defeat a Spanish Imperial one, but I would weigh the probability of a win higher on the latter period army. 

But, I was thinking about it - when would the Roman legions be guaranteed to lose? Not too soon after the Renaissance period, I think. So mid-18th Century with field artillery who could go through an aim, load and fire cycle in 6 seconds and the phasing out of pikes so that every infantry man had a reasonably efficient gun with bayonet. Thinking about Culloden as a potential model for what might happen!


----------



## The Big Peat (Apr 25, 2022)

Venusian Broon said:


> I think they were still more flexible than the 'anvil' that was the Macedonian phalanx. Once they were committed to either outshove the other side, or wait for their cavalry to hit the back, they were essentially just a big muscular mass, holding the enemy 'in place'. Yeah, you will certainly find similar situations on European battlefields in the late Medieval/Renaissance period where that happens, but in other battles the flexibility and offensive qualities of tercio were paramount.



I don't think they were sufficiently more flexible, but it's been a while since I studied that period seriously.



Venusian Broon said:


> I just picked a few from memory and looked them up on wikipedia - 20k per side seemed about average. It certainly seems a size commanders could easily handle for the time. The thing also is that the 20k size of a consular army was its theoretical maximum. I believe that usually it varied and was lower. As you know it is difficult effectively estimating most army sizes pre 18th century or so!



Hmm. I can see a few 20k+ armies for Rome before even looking at the civil war where they fielded huge armies - Medway is one example - where as battles like Cerignola and La Motta are around 10k a side.



Venusian Broon said:


> Depends what you try to stab, or were trained to stab. I always get the idea that they went for the torso, so a breast plate would be a good defence.



I've never really researched that part. I did see something about liking to hit armoured foes with blunt instruments on one website, but hardly a reliable source.



Venusian Broon said:


> =====
> 
> As you can probably tell I am going for a Renaissance win on a straight one-on-one in the battlefield. Not saying that a Roman army couldn't defeat a Spanish Imperial one, but I would weigh the probability of a win higher on the latter period army.
> 
> But, I was thinking about it - when would the Roman legions be guaranteed to lose? Not too soon after the Renaissance period, I think. So mid-18th Century with field artillery who could go through an aim, load and fire cycle in 6 seconds and the phasing out of pikes so that every infantry man had a reasonably efficient gun with bayonet. Thinking about Culloden as a potential model for what might happen!



I'd probably favour the Renaissance depending on exact make up, but I'd still hand it to the better leaders.

Tbh, I suspect a well led Roman army could beat a poorly led Napoleonic era army. It's not like we don't see massed infantry break foes in melee in this period, and well trained archers and slingers would be a very nasty surprise for unarmoured outranged infantry. I'd also point out that Napoleonic era artillery is still firing only two roundshot a minute...


----------



## Venusian Broon (Apr 25, 2022)

The Big Peat said:


> Hmm. I can see a few 20k+ armies for Rome before even looking at the civil war where they fielded huge armies - Medway is one example - where as battles like Cerignola and La Motta are around 10k a side.



Hmm <cracks knuckles> 

Okay I just picked a war at random: The War of the League of Cambrai 1508-1516:

I lowballed all the numbers to get the average if I was given a range


Agnadello 30,000 v 15,000

Padua (siege) 40,000 v 15,000

Brescia (siege) 12,000 v 15,000+

Ravenna 23,000 v 21,000

Novara 22,000 v 11,000 - 20,000 (unknown exactly how many swiss)

Battle of the Spurs 30,000 overall (but many fewer were engaged) v 7,000

Flodden 26,000 v 30-40,000

La Motta 13,000 v 9,000

Marignano 30,000 v 22,000



*Average size of army: 20,611*



The Big Peat said:


> Tbh, I suspect a well led Roman army could beat a poorly led Napoleonic era army. It's not like we don't see massed infantry break foes in melee in this period, and well trained archers and slingers would be a very nasty surprise for unarmoured outranged infantry. I'd also point out that Napoleonic era artillery is still firing only two roundshot a minute...



Technically I do think a man  with a rifle and a bayonet has the advantage over one with a sword, never mind how many shots he got off before the roman could get within arms reach - the longer reach of the bayonet is a significant advantage- Lindybeige did some interesting videos on how one-on-one a spear usually beats a sword. True in a mass melee, this advantage does get cut down a lot. But with proper bayonet drill - hence me pointing out Culloden, where the government forces had to deal with highlanders who relied on shock tactics and getting close and personal with swords and dirks - it can continue to be relevant.

Re: the cannons, I was thinking about the small light field cannons of Gustuvus Adolphus - '3 pounders' I believe - who had a firing rate 3-5 times more than the heavier guns of the opposition. Also they were pioneering canister shot. I don't know when they went out of favour nor do I know if that means they were firing 6-10 shots per minute. (10 per minute certainly seems to be the max allowed if you have 6 second cycle.)


----------



## Valtharius (Apr 25, 2022)

I think it would be a fun added twist if you made the Renaissance soldiers Byzantines.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Apr 26, 2022)

Repeated mention has been made of roman cavalry, but if we're talking late Republic/early Empire then my impression is that Roman cavalry will be in limited numbers anyway, and where they are used offensively will be light auxiliaries such as Nubian archers who act more like skirmishing troops and would be hard to counter.

Pikes alone may not be a problem, as my impression is that they will be close to the Hoplite fighting style that the Romans were able to overcome. Gunpowder is plain unfair advantage though.

The main advantage of the Roman legion IMO isn't discipline, it's the fact that no matter how many legions you wipe out, more turn up until the Romans finally win. Rome had a huge source of manpower to field multiple new legions at short notice.


----------



## Montero (Apr 26, 2022)

Brian G Turner said:


> . Gunpowder is plain unfair advantage though.


Up to a point. It is very hard to use on any day when the rain is hammering down - turns to black soup. If both sides are gunpowder armies, they are equally disadvantaged. If only one side is, then the disadvantage is mostly on one side - with allowance for archers struggling with wet bow strings and drummers not able to signal the orders due to wet drum skins.
Never underestimate the impact of mud on a battle. It isn't just the skidding around, it's dealing with vast clots of crap on your feet dragging you back.


----------



## sknox (Apr 26, 2022)

Both Roman and Renaissance are too vague. Specifiy a century. And, for the Renaissance side, specify the army.

As others have noted, there were huge changes over the course of, say, 1400 to 1700. The biggest for your consideration is the advent of field artillery. You can't presume pikes, nor muskets. It was all just too much in flux. Folks have already spoken to the variations on the Roman side.

In short, you can choose a persuasive victor either way, especially when you add in battlefield factors like weather, ground, fog of war, and so on.


----------



## KiraAnn (Apr 27, 2022)

One thing I noted in this discussion: What do you consider the Renaissance period to be?

For me, anything after mid-16th century is post-Renaissance, so any comparisons with Napoleonic units or those of Gustavus Adolphus or Elizabeth I are out of place.


----------



## sciwriterPark (Apr 27, 2022)

Venusian Broon said:


> If it late Renaissance, good quality gunpowder seemed plentiful - I believe gunpowder weapons start to become common around 1350, go forward a hundred and fifty years plus (possibly where OP is placing Renaissance) and you have army units that rely on having arquebus in very large numbers. You can only have that if there is a lot of powder.
> 
> Disagree with the armour - I think 1400-1500 was 'peak armour': essentially you have fully encased knights and high quality plate steel. Other soldiers wouldn't be fully dressed in metal, but a steel breast plate takes the place of a large shield - something the Romans would be struggling to carry about in battle. The traditional Roman tactic of stabbing with swords ain't going to do much - blunt weapons to paralyse then fit knives between armour plates seemed to be the order of the day.
> 
> ...


Many Roman soldiers carried the pugio for close-in fighting to stab and grapple and people generally know to stab into weak points between the armor. I was also wondering if the Roman legion is actually more maneuverable on the battlefield whereas the Renaissance armies weren't as mobile. I think that the Roman cohorts could outflank renaissance infantry. The Romans would also have cavalry and missile auxiliary troops in a legion. I seem to recall that after the meddle ages military thinkers looked back in history because infantry became more important.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Apr 27, 2022)

sciwriterPark said:


> Many Roman soldiers carried the pugio for close-in fighting to stab and grapple and people generally know to stab into weak points between the armor. I was also wondering if the Roman legion is actually more maneuverable on the battlefield whereas the Renaissance armies weren't as mobile. I think that the Roman cohorts could outflank renaissance infantry. The Romans would also have cavalry and missile auxiliary troops in a legion. I seem to recall that after the meddle ages military thinkers looked back in history because infantry became more important.


Yes they did have cavalry in a consular army - I say/hint that somewhere above. But it would be poor quality. It was poor quality at the time (if we are talking about Republic-era consular armies. Which is where I assume we are all thinking.) Renaissance cavalry would wipe the floor of any roman cav, run over any weak auxiliaries then leave the heavy roman infantry stranded. 

Would be my guess.


----------



## sciwriterPark (Apr 27, 2022)

I think you are right but the quality of troops would be also a major factor. If you pit poor quality Renaissance troops against veteran a Roman legion, I would favor the Romans.  

I guess as far as cav goes I think it depends on how each used the units, charging home is not the way Romans would used them against their enemy.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Apr 27, 2022)

Generally speaking, the later the army the more the advantage. Superior weaponry, tactics and armour. Having said that, tactics, armour and weaponry of the day would reflect on the tactics, armour and weaponry of the opposition.


 However morale and command will have a major bearing on the outcome. All being equal, I wouldn't give much for the chances of a Roman army facing an enemy with more modern guns, cannon, armoury and cavalry. However the Romans would likely be much more adept at fortifications and living off the land and able to adapt to the enemies tactics more quickly. In a longer campaign the Romans may have the edge.


----------



## Astro Pen (Apr 28, 2022)

Don't forget:
The Renaissance have Da Vinci tanks


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 29, 2022)

This is an interesting line of thought.

By extension, how would a Roman army have fared against Agincourt-era English longbowmen?


----------



## paranoid marvin (Apr 29, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> This is an interesting line of thought.
> 
> By extension, how would a Roman army have fared against Agincourt-era English longbowmen?




Well to start off with the Romans wouldn't have come charging across a boggy field towards the English army. But I'm not sure how they could have advanced across such terrain without being shot to pieces. The testudo combined with Roman army would have had some effect, but the physical strength of the archers, their warbows and she sheer number of armour-piercing arrows they could unleash would likely have led to the legionaries having a very bad day indeed.


----------



## sciwriterPark (May 3, 2022)

Also, I think its worth mentioning that the Imperial Roman army at it height would have been very well trained and lead by professional soldiers with good logistical support. They would have been able to out maneuver most other armies that were armed with comparable weapons and defeat them. I don't think a disciplined Roman army would have had too much difficulty with longbows. Just my opinion.


----------



## svalbard (May 19, 2022)

Toby Frost said:


> I am currently writing a fantasy novel in which, thanks to magic, an army of generic Imperial "Romans" suddenly faces off against an equally-sized army of generic "Renaissance soldiers". This is in a secondary world, so I'm happy to treat both as stereotypes and fudge the details, even though in reality both sides would have varied hugely during the relevant periods. It's pretty silly, but interesting: how well would superior Roman discipline fare against a unit of mercenary handgunners? Could a big shield fend off a pike?
> 
> I've come to my own conclusions as to who wins (I reckon you could rig the story either way without it becoming outrageously unfeasible), but I'm just wondering whether I've missed some obvious factor in the battle.



A bit outside your timelines Arther Ferrill in The Origins of War postulated that Alexander the Great's army could have won at Waterloo. Gunpowder was obviously the the major issue, however he balances this out with a number of points.

1. Alexander was a more daring and direct general than Napoleon. Therefore there would have been no delays at Waterloo as per some of Napolean's indecision on the day.

2. The French got with 20ft of the British line. No reason to believe that the phalanx would not have as well. 

3. With armour and a forest of pikes once the Greeks closed with the British line them it would have been chaos.

He has a more detailed explanation and it sort of makes sense.


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 20, 2022)

Was just reading that the Roman Empire routinely had around 28-30 legions at any one time. Which reminded that the numbers involved in warfare during the ancient period were far larger than during Europe's mediaeval period. So a direct confrontation between a Roman army and Renaissance army would see the Romans far outnumber the opposition, if weighted for that. Could be interesting.


----------



## BAYLOR (May 20, 2022)

sknox said:


> Both Roman and Renaissance are too vague. Specifiy a century. And, for the Renaissance side, specify the army.
> 
> As others have noted, there were huge changes over the course of, say, 1400 to 1700. The biggest for your consideration is the advent of field artillery. You can't presume pikes, nor muskets. It was all just too much in flux. Folks have already spoken to the variations on the Roman side.
> 
> In short, you can choose a persuasive victor either way, especially when you add in battlefield factors like weather, ground, fog of war, and so on.




For dates 
The Roman Empire ot Trajan 98 to 117 
The Renaissance  of say 1500


----------



## Toby Frost (May 20, 2022)

How good was a massive two-handed weapon like a Dacian falx against a Roman shield? I wonder if Renaissance zweihander swords might be useful close up.

Given that there's going to be some close-quarter street fighting as well, I think the Renaissance people will be inventing the hand grenade and chain shot a little early.


----------



## Montero (May 20, 2022)

Speaking as a epee fencer, who has also played at modern sabre against proper sabreurs, if you have someone swinging a big sword, if you are fast, and good at point work, you can time it to lunge in when they are wide open, either having gone back for the swing, or just after the swing came down, and your point by-passes their edge. But if you get it wrong your weapon, or even you, would be sliced in two.

Though it is satisfying to go straight though a load of whirly blade work that your opponent thinks is impressive.


----------



## sknox (May 23, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> For dates
> The Roman Empire ot Trajan 98 to 117
> The Renaissance  of say 1500



I still hold to my previous statement: you can construct the encounter in such a way to make either a convincing winner. Armies in 1500 were not all the same. Are we talking Scots? Sicilians? Swiss? Other places that start with "S"? <g> 

The condition of the troops, the quality of the commanders, the field of battle, weather, the size of the forces, and a score of other variables all factor in. Perhaps it would help to state the contrary: there is no believable portrayal that would have the Romans always winning or the Renaissance-era army always winning.


----------



## paranoid marvin (May 23, 2022)

svalbard said:


> A bit outside your timelines Arther Ferrill in The Origins of War postulated that Alexander the Great's army could have won at Waterloo. Gunpowder was obviously the the major issue, however he balances this out with a number of points.
> 
> 1. Alexander was a more daring and direct general than Napoleon. Therefore there would have been no delays at Waterloo as per some of Napolean's indecision on the day.
> 
> ...




I think that if Alexander had replaced Napoleon, then for a lot of reasons there would never have been a Waterloo. Basically, the French army at this stage had no guarantee of reinforcements. The only chance of winning was by outmanoeuvring and defeating the armies of individual nations with overwhelming odds. 

What they couldn't afford was what Waterloo was; a natural killing ground that would slow down and inflict significant casualties on both sides. The vast majority of casualties would be in the rout at the end of a battle, yet even though Wellington's stood firm to the point of victory, they still lost a quarter of their force. If Napoleon had overcome the redoubts and broken the infantry squares, he would have lost an equal number, if not more. Even in victory he would have been left with a severely depleted army, no guarantees of replacements, and another battle imminently afterwards.

So I would say that Alexander would have not split his forces after Ligny, and there likely would never have been a Waterloo in the first place.

If it was a case of replacing the French army and Napoleon with a Macedonian army and Alexander then the phalanx would have not been unlike the French columns, except they would not have been capable of fighting back until extremely close to Wellington's lines. With Wellington being able to bring up his artillery (no chance of being shelled by the Macedonian army), I don't think that Alexander's army would have got anywhere near the enemy lines before being slaughtered.

If you put Alexander in charge of a French army, you almost certainly have a French victory, because Waterloo was arguable one of Napoleon's worst performances. However, as I mentioned above even a French victory would have been more costly than they could afford, making it pyrrhic at best.


----------



## svalbard (May 23, 2022)

The splitting of the French Army is critical. Grouchy having a pleasant country side ramble dis not help. And I agree Alexander would not have split his forces.


----------



## paranoid marvin (May 23, 2022)

svalbard said:


> The splitting of the French Army is critical. Grouchy having a pleasant country side ramble dis not help. And I agree Alexander would not have split his forces.



A most bizarre decision. He should either have attacked the Prussians when retreating, or he should have pursued them away from the battlefield in the opposite direction to Wellington. Instead he gave them a few hours head start and then sent a 3rd of his forces off trying to find them.


----------



## svalbard (May 23, 2022)

Was not the vagueness of the orders part of the problem. Or did Grouchy deliberately misconstrue? Whatever the reasons it was disaster of a decision.


----------



## BAYLOR (May 23, 2022)

paranoid marvin said:


> I think that if Alexander had replaced Napoleon, then for a lot of reasons there would never have been a Waterloo. Basically, the French army at this stage had no guarantee of reinforcements. The only chance of winning was by outmanoeuvring and defeating the armies of individual nations with overwhelming odds.
> 
> What they couldn't afford was what Waterloo was; a natural killing ground that would slow down and inflict significant casualties on both sides. The vast majority of casualties would be in the rout at the end of a battle, yet even though Wellington's stood firm to the point of victory, they still lost a quarter of their force. If Napoleon had overcome the redoubts and broken the infantry squares, he would have lost an equal number, if not more. Even in victory he would have been left with a severely depleted army, no guarantees of replacements, and another battle imminently afterwards.
> 
> ...



In this  alt Pyrrhic French  victory ,   what if Lord Wellington had ended up a casualty?


----------



## paranoid marvin (May 24, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> In this  alt Pyrrhic French  victory ,   what if Lord Wellington had ended up a casualty?



It's more likely that if facing defeat, Wellington's forces would have withdrawn further to the coast. But in all honesty, it was the tenacity of Blucher turning around a recently defeated army and hitting the French in the flank that won the day at Waterloo. It was the bravery and steadfastness of Wellington's men that held the French at bay until the Prussians could arrive. If Wellington had been injured or captured then Blucher would have made a worthy successor. But with the Russian, Prussian and Austrian armies (as well as a regrouping of the British forces) Napoleon would only have faced one adversary after another.

It was only ever delaying the inevitable, because a lack of support from Paris meant that the longer that Napoleon was away from the capital, the more in jeopardy he was despite any victories his army may achieved. By this stage what he lacked were Marshals to wage the war abroad whilst he kept things together at home.


----------



## Toby Frost (May 25, 2022)

Ok then, let's talk about artillery, especially siege artillery. Is there anything very obvious that I need to know about loading a cannon? For instance, say I'm in a castle and I know an enemy force is approaching. When would I load the cannon? Just as they're coming into range, or a bit earlier?


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 26, 2022)

Toby Frost said:


> Is there anything very obvious that I need to know about loading a cannon?


All I know about cannons is that cannonballs don't explode like modern artillery shells, as depicted in films - cannonballs are intended to maim multiple troops at the same time. That's why sometimes smaller cannonballs were chained together to create more of a mess, as seen in _The Borgias_ TV series.


----------



## Toby Frost (May 26, 2022)

Yes, I think you'd use different cannonballs (and probably cannons) for different targets. It seems that the use of chain-shot was regarded as bad form, at least in sieges - but that wouldn't matter when you're facing a legion of dead Romans.

I suspect that one of those small bolt-throwers would be really nasty against a formation of pikemen, and probably quicker and safer to use than a cannon. But I reckon the Romans would be at a serious disadvantage in a siege, not having gunpowder - assuming that they wanted to storm the town and not just starve it out.


----------



## Toby Frost (May 26, 2022)

sknox said:


> Perhaps it would help to state the contrary: there is no believable portrayal that would have the Romans always winning or the Renaissance-era army always winning.



That's the conclusion I've come to, and the one I wanted!


----------



## paranoid marvin (May 27, 2022)

Toby Frost said:


> Ok then, let's talk about artillery, especially siege artillery. Is there anything very obvious that I need to know about loading a cannon? For instance, say I'm in a castle and I know an enemy force is approaching. When would I load the cannon? Just as they're coming into range, or a bit earlier?



If you're about to be surrounded, then you will likely have limited ammo and gunpowder for a cannon - so it needs to be used sparingly. And if you have cannon, the enemy will keep out of range of it or attempt to build defensive works. As soon as the castle's defenders run out of ammo for their cannon,  the enemy is simply going to wheel their artillery into range of your walls and gates and that will be that. 

So it has to be used as a deterrent, or if your walls are assaulted. But to be honest by the time that cannon became widely available and effective (the end of the 16th century), the age of the castle as a place of refuge over. Prior to this cannons, their ammo and gunpowder and trained crews to operate them were expensive, unreliable (King James II was killed by one when it exploded) and often ineffective. 

What tended to replace them were cannon forts, so well constructed that there are many still standing today. Low-built, star shaped structures bristling with cannon that covered the coastal areas were enemy ships could land, or sail past to more valuable targets upriver. An excellent example is a Tilbury on the River Thames which guarded the approach to London.


----------



## Boaz (Jun 2, 2022)

Looks like @Toby Frost found a conclusion before I found this discussion.  Much has been discussed regarding technology and logistics.  There has been some discussion on professionalism, but little on command and control.  @paranoid marvin brought up the aspect of command it is here that I think lies the hope for a Roman victory or the ability of the Renaissance army to annihilate the Romans.

I think we'd all pretty much agree with marvin's statement...



paranoid marvin said:


> Generally speaking, the later the army the more the advantage. Superior weaponry, tactics and armour.


and with Brian's statement...


Brian G Turner said:


> The main advantage of the Roman legion IMO isn't discipline, it's the fact that no matter how many legions you wipe out, more turn up until the Romans finally win. Rome had a huge source of manpower to field multiple new legions at short notice.


 A Roman army lost in space and time, could not rely upon reinforcements.  (Neither could the Rennaissance army, nor any other for that matter.) When faced with technological and logistical disadvantages, the Romans could learn over time to adapt to or imitate their enemies knowledge.

I think, at a technological disadvantage, without reinforcements, and with no logistical advantage, a Roman victory would depend upon command (morale, choosing terrain, scouting, etc.) and control (communications, professionalism, supply, etc.)  I envision a highly skilled commander leading the Romans to victory and immediately examining their foes equipment for benefits.  I can equally see an average to poor commander following Varro, Crassus, and Varus into ignominy.


----------

