"Romans" v "Renaissance"

[Toby Frost]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

- 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.

- 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!

-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]

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.

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.

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.

=====

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...