Medieval Weapons VS Roman Armour: Would Roman Armour Keep you Safe?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 чер 2024
- Would Roman Armour protect you against Medieval Weapons? Could a lorica hamata or a lorica segmentata stop the power of a Medieval lance in full charge?Let's find out!
Link to my Instagram page :D
/ metatronyoutubeofficial
Link to the video collab on the look of a Roman woman
• I TRIED A ROMAN MAKEUP...
And links to the rest of the collabs on Medieval, Egyptian and Norse women
• I TRIED A NORSE MAKEUP...
• I TRIED AN EGYPTIAN MA...
• I TRIED A MEDIEVAL MAK...
Link to Tod's video on breaking arrow shafts!
• Breaking Shafts
A Roman legion was the largest unit of the Roman army, consisting of centuries as the basic units.
For most of the Roman Imperial period, the legions formed the Roman army's elite heavy infantry, recruited exclusively from Roman citizens, while the remainder of the army consisted of auxiliaries, who provided additional infantry and the vast majority of the Roman army's cavalry.
A legion consisted of several cohorts of heavy infantry known as legionaries. It was almost always accompanied by one or more attached units of auxiliaries, who were not Roman citizens and provided cavalry, ranged troops and skirmishers to complement the legion's heavy infantry.
From the time of Gaius Marius onwards, legionaries received 225 denarii a year; this basic rate remained unchanged until Domitian, who increased it to 300 denarii. The soldiers did not receive all the money in cash, as the state deducted a clothing and food tax from their pay. To this wage, a legionary on active campaign would hope to add the booty of war. Slaves could also be claimed from the prisoners of war and divided amongst the legion for later sale, which would bring in a sizeable supplement to their regular pay.
All legionary soldiers would also receive a praemia on the completion of their term of service: a sizeable sum of money and/or a plot of good farmland; farmland given to veterans often helped in establishing control of the frontier regions and over rebellious provinces.
A sword is a bladed weapon used for cutting and thrusting the enemies. The precise definition of the term varies with the historical epoch or the geographical region under consideration. A sword in the most narrow sense consists of a straight blade with two edges and a hilt, but depending on context, the term is also often used to refer to bladed weapons with a single edge.
Maces are blunt weapons, a club-like that uses a heavy head on the end of a handle to smash enemies with powerful and devastating blows. A mace typically is made of a strong, heavy, wooden or metal shaft, reinforced with metal, with a head made of stone, copper, bronze, iron, or steel.
They sometimes added flanges or knobs to the head of a military mace to allow greater penetration of plate armour. Maces were developed during the Paleolithic from the simple club, by adding sharp spikes of flint or obsidian. During the Middle Ages armour made of metal such as mail protected against the blows of edged weapons. Metal maces and war hammers though proved able to inflict damage on metal armoured knights, as the force of a blow from a mace is great enough to cause damage without penetrating the armour. Iron was often the main choice to build this kind of weapons but copper and bronze were also used, especially in iron-deficient areas.
Follow me on my social networks:
/ themetatron
Check out my Metatron merch online shop!
teespring.com/shop/metatron-c...
/ metatron_youtube
Metatron-153...
/ puremetatron
/ realmetatron
Royalty free music by Epidemic Sound:
intro ES_Knights Templar 1 - Johannes Bornlöf
#Metatron #Romans #Medieval
intro 2 ES_Medieval Adventure 01 - Johannes Bornlöf
outro ES_Knights Templar 2 - Johannes Bornlöf
Check out the facebook page of the photographer who works with me, he has lots of fantastic pictures
amedeo.capor...
and his instagram
amedeo.capor...
Check out my friend Salvo's channel
/ @littlesalvo000
"Do you like weapons, Armour, samurai and pasta? "
Metatron-Italian philosopher
I didn't think I'd get this much likes
😂😂😂😂😂😂, why youtube hasn't any hahaha react button
Not gonna lie he had me at that line
@@Adam-hs9ft same lmao
I like all these things, but alas, I was already subscribed.
Next: Roman pasta vs. medieval pasta.
Unironically, I wouldn't complain about a history/comparison of pasta dishes before tomato sauces came to dominate.
@@dynamicworlds1 based on what I know in the very beginning pasta was just made with basil and cheese. Then they noticed tomatoes added more flavour.
actually he did it ua-cam.com/video/5yh9R8S0_2E/v-deo.html
0:48 rare footage of an ancient Roman scribe
Renaissance pasta beats both, because that's when tomatoes were added.
Totally agree that a charging knight armed with a lance would penetrate the armor of a roman soldier. But it would also penetrate the armor of medieval men-at-arms, wouldn't it?
Depends on the type of armor the common soldier had shitty low quality armor most of the time
@Lewis Sparks As far as we know, cataphracts couldn't apply the full force of the charge the way knights did it.
I'd rather fight a charging knight wit a lance than a charging Carthaginian or Seleucid war elephant. The Roman had dealt with far more dangerous threats than a couple of horsemen with long sticks.
It would also penetrate the armor of another medieval knight counter charging too, so yeah.
@@magister.mortran you have played too many games.
Last time I was this early Rome still had a king
Best comment I’ve seen
The pope is, technically, the King of the vatican. Check CGP Grey's videos on the pope
You’re so original
@@hazzmati I fail to understand
Basilia Romeion
At this point Metatron just accepts that him being italian is a meme.
Wait so he isn't italian?
to quote the classics: "Rome if you want to, without wings, without wheels"
Being italian IS a meme
@@thehuntermikipl1170 He is, it's just people make jokes about it, and the Metatron has sorta just accepted it for the keks.
@@thehuntermikipl1170 he accepted that being Italian IS a meme
12:37 roman rings were quite good...
- Sauron has joined the chat
Love it.
The most important factor is how armor was acquired. I doubt any 15th Century magnate can afford issuing full gothic or Milanese harness to each troop of an army of 5000. Men-at-arms were only a small portion of the army and they all purchased their own plate armor. Roman armor like the lorica segmentata were issued by the Republic and later the Empire, if I remember correctly. So when you commission state-issued armor of large quantity, you don't necessarily produce THE best quality the technology is capable of, but what the most cost-effective is.
Also, I like you brought up the fact that slightly out-of-fashion armor were still used and reused instead of becoming obsolete instantly and getting thrown away. When I showcased armor in my game "Fortune Favours the Bold", some people were literally offended by the idea that the games takes place in 1453, while armor styles from 1430-1440 are still seen. Only the loaded magnates can always afford the latest state-of-the-art harness, not to mention it takes time for the most skilled armorers to produce them, just like in modern days.
Do you have a link to your game? I agree with your idea about armor acquisition. That is why after the Roman Empire collapsed lorica segmentata essentially disappeared and plate armor never returned until much later. The small parts and uniform plates required a complicated and robust logistical network to produce and maintain. Mail armor is simply easier to craft and mend, and offers suitable protection. Roman Republic mainly used mail and scale armors, and if you consider archeological findings, lorica segmentata may have not been widespread at all. L.S. is often hyped up due to the Column of Trajan, but that may have been an artists rendition of an idealized Roman army with the most modern gear for the time, not what actually existed.
@@darkmattergamesofficial I would categorize lorica segmentata as laminar armor, instead of plate, if we wanna go anal about the technicality XD. But I totally agree, it wasn't the most cost-effective Roman armor to issue to dozens of legions of troops.
@@FortuneFavoursTheBold That's a good point. It really is more similar to lamellar armor than later plate armors.
@@darkmattergamesofficial I meant "laminar" instead of lamellar, but close enough =)
@@FortuneFavoursTheBold Shoot, yeah I get those mixed up in my head!
One thing to keep in mind is just because someone holds a noble title and even land in the Middle Ages, does not automatically mean they're ultra wealthy. The estate could have been mismanaged by the current Lord or a previous Lord, or they could have suffered form war losses or been devastated by a natural disaster or took a risky venture that went wrong. However it may happen, they still hole their titles but are now impoverished. That was not exactly rare for a noble family to become impoverished, and in that case, a commoner from a wealthy merchant house may be able to afford better equipment then an impoverished noble when preparing to go to war. That would be the exception to the rule but not exactly unheard of.
Totally agree. Even today there are so incredibly advanced weapon systems around. But actually affording them is a totally different story.
Also we shouldn't forget that it wasn't just the Roman equipment saving the day, but also their tactics utilized.
I am kind of doublful any army in the early, middle or late medieval period was able to pull off the amount of disciplined manoeuvres and tactics employed by the Roman legions. Or the amount of engineering miracles the legions performed on a daily basis.
Also the feudal system of many individual lords forming a collective army is hampering effective communications and battle planning. Compared to what the legions employed.
@@Philtopy I think I mentioned in a different comment thread on this video that the Romans would have a tactical and discipline advantage in most or at least many cases. Not always, but I think they'd tend to.
As for engineering, that's technology and the Medieval armies, except for specific cases very early, would have a huge advantage. Medieval armies could build weapons like the trebuchet that Romans had never even conceived of yet, and fortifications capable of withstanding the trebuchet, and certainly any siege tactics and equipment the Romans had available to them at the time. Medieval artillery, like the Trebuchet, would be able to breach Roman fortifications, especially their temporary camp forts, pretty readily. Medieval engineering was based on advancements of Roman engineering technology.
The specific cases where Romans would have an advantage very early in the Middle Ages would be due to a brain drain, as when the Empire withdrew from places like Britiania, they took all the skilled scientists, craftsmen and engineers with them, leaving them without the skills needed to maintain the technology or build anything but primitive stuff.
@@Seriously_Unserious Ok I was on my phone and didnt have the time. Now Im at my pc and can write a lot more that I wanted to mention. prepare for a novel. Sorry for any spelling mistakes.
Yeah you are definetly right that a trebuchet was a fearsome weapon to behold and no ancient fortification could withstand such a devices onslaught.
But there are three points I image will negate the power of such siegecraft in a prolonged campaign between the two sides:
1. They are damn expensive. The engineer was often an employed traveling expert who needed a big extra payment and the thing itself also did cost quite a sum. so only the bigger armys could afford it. the romans had their mobile siegecraft included in the legion. so they would oftenly have access to the scorpions wich I imagine would have some impact on the battlefield.
2. as you said, experts are hard to find. while every roman legion had many men trained in siegecraft and engineering, the early middle ages had a real lack of them and as I said, later on they oftenly were very high wage experts who knew their worth. While a roman field engineer was trained inside the legion and took it as part of his job and duty with said legion.
3. ( this one directly intertwines into my next argument) their immobility and slow building time. they can only be employed against big fortifications that justify this spending of time. So they are for cities. But a roman legion does not necesseraly need a city to function. They build a fortified base every single evening from wich they can operate.
now what I mentioned in point 3: Mobility. The roman legions were very quick. infact it was said they had won most their wars by outmarching the enemy. that means, taking the most vital positions before the enemy. outflanking them before they could organize. moving troops to vital places before the enemy could use them. and fortifying campsites. So not only were the legions quick, they were also often very well defended and used those camps as bases of operation. they would be constantly ahead of the medieval armys time schedule.
They could also operate in spring and autuum. something a medieeval army couldnt do well because the feudal levy had to go back to fieldwork. at least for early medieval armys.
next I wonder how the legionary would really be compared to a medieval soldier in skill. as I mentioned most medieval troops were feudal levy. so they didnt practice warfare all the time. they had to tent to their places outside of caimpaigning season. if it wasnt for a big crusadelike event, most smaller european hosts were only really able to be around for one season and then had to be disbanded again before it was too late for the harvest. mercenary armies were expensive and sometimes unreliable. mostly the late medieval states usually had standing armies. The mid and late roman legion on the other hand could campaign even in off-season months with proper preparation since they were fulltime soldiers employed by the state/ the higher senators and lived off the land with foraging parties. So the discipline, experience and training of a medieval levy can hardly reach that of a legionary. thats just the difference between a fulltime soldier and a campaign season soldier. and we arent even talking about direct comparison between tactics.
also we are talking about numbers: a full legion had 6000 men + that much auxilary. but if the romans attack, they usually take more legions.
early medieval armys barely reached more than 10.000 men. everything above that was considered a really big thing. the invasion of England by the Normans was esteimated to have 10-14 thousand men and riders. That was all to claim the english throne.
So two roman legions full hosts with together ~20.000 men was a real force to recon with.
Also we cant forget that the ancient romans were not just using one tech till the end. they adapted. as mentioned they employed many many auxilary units. from all around their empire. that worked because they had total religious freedom for their citizens. So employing Arabs, Numidians, Gauls or Germans was totally normal for them and those auxilaries helped them overcome their weaknesses. they would always strike deals with locals and use the enemys disunity to their advantage.
In conclusion I think, just like you, that the roman legionary should not be reduced to his equiptment since his biggest reason for success was the combination of all. training, numbers, leadership, logicstics, mobility, discipline, unit composure and expansion policy. They would have a reasonable and good fighting chance against an early to mid medival army. Late medieval is another matter.
But those are just my thoughts. I have barely enought knowledge about both eras to appear educated towards a newbcrowd, but thats it. So I suspect a real history buff can give a better insight. but maybe this gives a little thought experiment for anybody willing to read that novel ...
@@Philtopy You actually bring up several points I mentioned in another thread.
The Roman's advantage being the organized, professional structure of their armies, and the training and discipline that comes with that. They'll have enough battle hardened veterans to sprinkle the green recruits among that they'll be less susceptible to routes due to indiscipline. Not completely immune, a Roman army lead be an ass of a Legat or Consul could and did suffer from indiscipline like any army would due to bad leadership, but that's the exception to the rule, and Rome was no stranger to corruption allowing such individuals to continue to hold command over their armies in spite of their obvious incompetence, just as medieval armies suffered from the corrupt and incompetent.
Technology would be a clear and decisive advantage to the medieval armies, but one that Rome could overcome under the right circumstances. Medieval armies were no strangers to forced marches and could move fast when they had to as well, and were well aware of the tactical advantages of doing so. One could argue they'd have the ability to move farther then the Romans could due to better technology and not needing to fortify their camp every evening and break the fortifications down every morning before they can start marching.
The tactic a medieval army would be able to give the Romans the most trouble with though, would be the cavalry charge. Get a Roman legion arrayed in their formations with their tiny little swords and get a 1000 knights in the best armor of the time charging them and that would be enough to test the courage and discipline of even the mighty Roman legions. There would be sure to be at least some cohorts that would outright panic and break ranks, particularly the more green ones. That sight would be something they had not really trained for and never would have had to deal with on the battlefield. To a Roman solder, they'd have seen nothing like it before. To a Roman commander, they'd have seen no tactic like that before and wouldn't have an answer at first. They'd have to practice and drill it to find an answer, and probably requip their legions with the best anti cavalry weapons they're able to readily distribute in time to do any good.
Even if they didn't break, a packed line of Roman soldiers with their tiny gladiuses would not be able to do enough to the knights to make a difference in the battle. They'd be driven out of formation by the shock and force of the charge, and find themselves fighting a chaotic battle where they can't use their shield formations and swapping with fresh troops every couple of minutes. They'd be tired, panicked and confused. Follow that Knight's charge up with an infantry charge and they'd be ripe for a route. That's how I'd predict the first battle to go.
The next one they'd probably use their pilums in place of the gladius as their primary weapons to attempt to blunt the knight's 2nd charge, and that would help, but the pilum is still old polearm technology and it's not really built for hand held use anymore, it's meant mainly as a throwing spear, so it won't be as effective as a purpose built polearm would be, but they'd fare better, the knights would take higher casualties, but I'd expect chaos to still reign in the Roman ranks and they'd still get routed.
By this point, I'd expect they'll have started to win some smaller skirmishes and start taking prisoners from the medieval army, or maybe captured a small town and gained access to medieval craftsmen, maybe a village blacksmith, armorer or swordsmith, and if they're really lucky, a medieval engineer. They'd invest in bribing them to join Rome, with promises of land, weath and maybe even admittance into the lower tiers of the Patrician class, the Roman equivalent of a minor noble title, knighthood or Barron. That would be very tempting for a medieval commoner. Slavery, continuing to be a poor commoner, or a chance to be a wealthy noble. At least some would take the Romans up on their offer and begin teaching the Romans how to make medieval quality, high carbon tempered steel, and from there better steel weapons armor and tools. They'd also be able to buy medieval horses and find captured knights willing to be turncoats or knights belonging to an enemy medieval kingdom who'll be willing to work as mercenaries, training Roman cavalry medieval cavalry tactics and begin equipping Roman cavalry with similar horses, and arms as the medieval knights and training them how to fight like the knights do.
The Roman infantry would start to use some form of chainmail, or segmentata with medieval quality steel, offering better protection for the rank and file, with officers and elite soldiers probably being equipped with medieval plate armor. The gladius would be replaced with a more medieval style arming sword, probably still called "gladius" since that's basically their word for "sword" but maybe the Latin equivalent of "new gladius", but their primary weapons would be some variation of the pike, probably.
All this would take them a few years to implement though, so the medieval armies would continue to have the edge in technology for some time in a long war.
The Romans would likely have the advantage in numbers and training in most battles, but would continue to struggle against knights, medieval artillery and medieval fortifications, while medieval armies would fare better against the Roman fortifications.
The main challenge for the medieval kingdom would be fielding the numbers needed to take on the Roman Empire, and maintaining a standing army for a years or decades long war. However medieval Europeans were no stranger to such long wars, with examples like the 100 years war, the crusades to name a few, where they were on a long campaign of years or even centuries.
The key to victory for the medieval kingdom would be to use their technology to score quick, decisive victories and lay siege to Rome fast. Try and force the Caesar to surrender before they have a chance to catch up in technology.
The key for the Romans would be to use their size and organization to try and drag out the war as long as possible, stall the enemy and buy time, while using their wealth to acquire medieval technology any way they can to catch up in technology and use their strong industrial base and road system to distribute newer weapons to their armies ASAP. I'd expect them to trade with medieval neighbors they're currently not at war with, build spy networks and try to reverse engineer enemy equipment, in an attempt to catch up to the medieval technology of their neighbors in the shortest time possible. If Tome can hang on long enough to close the technology gap, the advantage would shift to Rome.
@AnotherOne everyone seems to have forgotten that medieval armies did fight romans in italy
Mainly 600 to 900
Normans vs eastern romans.
The romans fared well early on
But even though they had adapted, they lost italy to the normans.
Ultimately a roman army couldv held out until the 1100s but by the 1200s i call obselete.
Mind you the eastern romans were probably the first europeans to field heavy cavalry.
Therapist: pogging metatron isn't real. He can't hurt you
Pogging metatron:
A perhaps more interesting Question would be: How would a Roman army fair against a medieval army? Obviously you've got to deal with the huge questions of terrain, conditions, commanders, etc. But you could definitely draw out the various strengths and weaknesses that armies of these time periods would have in relation to each other. An example is that Medieval cavalry would clearly have the advantage over Roman Equites or Auxilia cavalry, And the heavier bows and crossbows of medieval warfare would be a nightmare for Romans to deal with on a battlefield. On the other hand, Roman Legionaries are arguably better equipped and clearly much better trained than most medieval Levies and their training was probably more thorough and unit oriented than medieval Men at Arms. Also, it's worth noting that one of the reasons shock cavalry worked so well in the medieval period was because medieval infantry weren't disciplined to stand against such a fearful opponent. Charges often would "fail", as in the charge didn't follow through and was pulled away before contact was made, because the spear infantry did manage to hold their ground. It's not like the Rohirrim charge in LotR, it's really difficult to persuade a horse to ram a wall wood and poky things, and hopeless to think that situation ends with any way other than the death of anyone in the immediate contact. The real way these charges worked was that they either probed the lines, picking off rando's with the reach of their lances, or they managed to cause a rout and they would run amok among the scattered infantry cutting them down with room to maneuver. Stuff like this is why casualties don't really pick up during a battle UNTIL one side routs. Thus, a Roman cohort might be able to nullify one of the Knight's best matchups by being so disciplined (in an ideal setup that is). Romans also had a pretty decent advantage in that many of the professional troops engaged in building public works/fortifications when not in combat, and so Roman soldiers would be great builders to a man which is a really big advantage in a world of medieval castles. One final note is to consider the larger logistics surrounding these two kinds of armies. Medieval armies are often smaller, and made of decentralized liege levies with no uniform equipment or training, mercenaries, and some knights. This gives a commander a lot of good tools to work with, but difficult to use because they aren't trained to work together that well. By contrast, the Roman army is (if records are to be believed) much larger on average, and made up of a deep and well enforced command structure with properly delegated autonomy to veteren soldiers over disciplined, well trained and uniformly equipped units of men trained to fight as one. This sort of setup has been proven to be so effective that it became the template for nearly all armies of the modern world, as it's easier for a commander to manage an army that works like one solid machine, even if it's parts are worse than another machine. Not to mention that Roman armies were incredibly mobile for their size because of the discipline and skills of it's soldiers as well as the depth of the logistics system that kept the armies fed, paid, and maintained on conquest.
Medieval armies were basically militias with a small elite component, while Romans were elite with a small militia component (auxillaries) as well as having professional engineers. The Romans would have won a traditional pitched battle or a siege, however, they would lose against an archer or crossbowmen heavy army
@@Mike-ukr It also runs into the same question/scenario The Metatron has at the end. What part of the Middle Ages? A late roman legion would wipe the floor against most 7/8th century armies, but the reverse would be true by the 12th century and beyond.
Well, medieval armies would do much better during a siege, and the part about the soldiers not being disciplined depends on the time period. Because if this was the time they started using pikes, then that would be false, because that is also the time that they really started using formations. If it wasn't, then they probably would be fairly disciplined, but not as much as romans. And this depends on who's attacking. In this case, the defender would probably win. Medieval armies with a proper castle would be able to defend very well, if they used pikes, and the normal anti siege things. Since they were used to dealing with all the siege engines romans invented and more, they would easily do better on defense, since while bows wouldn't be as effective, enough shots from stronger crossbows and possibly their own ballistas would likely prevent roman troops from moving up, and stuff like cauldrons would drive them away. If it was an open field, it would very likely be a victory for rome, although the medieval army would put up a good fight, since even though they aren't close to rome, their armies are disciplined enough to be effective. Lastly, if rome was being besieged, this could go either way. Medieval armies used many of the same siege engines that romans used, but on even larger scales. If the fortress that is being besieged is one of the larger ones, then it could easily go either way. Medieval armies were great for laying siege, but they weren't as good as roman armies as simply beating the enemy in an open battle. So if romans were being besieged, it could easily go either way, completely depending on a bunch of different factors
@@armandomassimini3023 Many of those 7/8 th century peoples were the ones who conquered Rome....
The problem with this assumption is that the Romans did face the predecessors of the medieval stats and lost to them. That is how the middle ages began. The Romans simply lacked the flexibility to deal with armies that could field significant cavalry bodies of light and medium cavalry. Even the inheritors of Roman the Byzantine struggled to deal with cavalry and were in almost uninterrupted decline until their end.
This is kind of a trick question as the Roman Empire was still around in the medieval period and was still at the cutting edge of armor making for the time. Would be interesting to see a video on how the Byzantine armor slowly evolved from what is typically seen as Roman armor
They didn't really "evolve" their armor, they just used an cheaper armor.
>gets hit in the head with mace
>immeadiatly throws up in enemy face
>mfw enemy drowns in his closed helmet
could end at gets hit in head with mace
@@KnightofLondor probably would ^^
Regarding the transition from "roman" to "medieval", wouldn't the byzantines be the most representative case? I know you don't consider them to be "roman", so I won't discuss that. But, as far as I know, the eastern legions continued their existence beyond the Vth century, and when they changed their military structure, soldiers would still use some of their old equipment and the "new" one would still be a direct evolution of roman technology and craftmanship.
But the Byzantines considerered themselfes Roman, to technically the Roman empire existed all the middle ages...
@@karliikaiser3800 I know that, and personally I consider the Roman Empire ended in 1453, but thats a controverdial matter, and something I'm no interested in discussing with Metraton. He doesn't count them as true romans, and I'm fine with that.
I just wanted to point out that as the inheritors of rome, they did "start" with purely roman equipment and evolved them during the medieval period, and so,a re the perfect example of a transition from "classic roman" to "medieval" gear.
Wait, where does Raff say he doesn't consider medieval Romans to be Roman?
@Eric Rogers And here we go again. Look, as I have said, I don't wan this to devolve in a discussion about the "Romanness" of the Byzantine empire.
What matters is that, however you call it the "Byzantine Empire/Estern Roman Empire/Roman Empire" was a medieval evolution of the classic roman civilization, including architecture, laws, millitary and many other aspects. I know the late roman army was very different from the typical lorica segmentata, rectangle shield, peplum legionaire, but precisely in this video, Metatron has mentioned the Vth century roman equipment as an example.
Your comparison about Spain doesn't hold water, as Spain's government isn't a direct continuation of the Roman Empire (although culturally you could argue that castillian culture is the succesor of Rome's along with the rest of romances). The thing with byzantines is that there is no invasion nor rupture with the "old" Roman Empire, to the point tha even those who treat the Byzantine Empire as a separate entity aren't sure about when does the Byzantine Empire start. Some consider the change of the "official language" from latin to greek under the rule of Heraclius, others the death of Theodosius I. Heck, I have even seen Constantine I The great being identified as the first Byzantine Emperor.
@Eric Rogers The spanish king does not hold the title of the roman emperor...
The Eastern Romans considered themself as Romans and it was a contiunation of the empire without interruption. The Spanish kingdom does not see itself as roman. Thats a huge difference. The architecture and culture were similar in the beginning and evolved, like roman architecure and culture evolved during the whole reign, even before the separation of east and west. I think the byzantine empire is mainly separated from the roman because of not confusing medieval and ancient rome. Not to confuse two different eras. The byzantines never called themselfes byzantines they called themselfes romans...
Such a good video my love, and super funny! 😂 and thank you so much for the mention on the historical makeup series on my channel! I really appreciate it! ☺️
Depends on the Roman Armor. Medival Roman Tagmata were really well armored, as were the Cataphractoi and Scutatoi.
Yes, the armor did vary over the centuries and by troop type.
“Roman”
Only slightly more Roman than the HRE
They were completely as roman as the roman empire. They stopped being as roman in and around 1100 ad
@@MasterChiefSargeant But then started again about 50 years later, and finally stopped in 1453.
Considering the lowest common denominators : The rank and file Roman Legionnaires compared to the rank and file of a Medieval peasant levies. The Romans would have the advantages of discipline, standards of training/equipment, command and control, logistics. Yes the medieval knights and men-at-arms would have a technological advantage, but they made a small concentrated elite. The Roman legionnaires advantage is deeper level and higher standard of training and discipline.
Ya, in the later medieval era you have the development of the first professional Mercenary armies : the Landsknecht, Swiss pikemen, and the English “White Company” but these are close to the Renaissance era. The Romans had serious troubles dealing with Macedonian pikemen, not to mention the route of the legions of Crassus by the Parthians.
@@salavat294 That also has less to do with the Parthians being gods (they were amazing don't get me wrong) and more to do with Crassus being a tactical fool who couldn't even handle a slave uprising but was desperate to be on the same level as Pompey and Caesar. He bit off way more than he could chew with that campaign and totally doomed himself when he refused to take tactical input from his officers.
@@WinterRaven25 crassus tactics were sound, taking on a square formation against the parthian horse archers.
His mosfortune was that their supple routes was very near, so they had a lot more arrows than they usuallu would, so the parthians could just stay at range.
That and his strategy was terrible - choosing a bad marching path, denying reinforcements, etc
WinterRaven25 : That just proves the point, that, an incompetent craftsman is an incompetent craftsman, no matter how good his tools. Having a successful military is dependent on a multitude of factors, intricately spliced together in order make an unstoppable juggernaut. A properly trained, equipped, and sustained professional military is a just a tool. Whether or not that army is successful in the field is entirely dependent on the quality of its General and his command staff. A clever competent General can take the day against a superior enemy through tactics, strategy, guile, subterfuge, deceit, and bluff.
Many types of Roman armor were already insufficient against powerful bows and lances of the ancient/classical world. According to Cassius Dio's "Roman History Book XL," at the Battle of Carrhae, Parthian arrows were flying into the Romans' eyes, piercing their hands, and even penetrating their armor. Dio also wrote that the lances of Parthian cataphracts impaled the Roman soldiers through their armor and sometimes then carried them away while impaled: "For if they decided to lock shields for the purpose of avoiding the arrows by the closeness of their array, the pikemen were upon them with a rush, striking down some, and at least scattering the others; and if they extended their ranks to avoid this, they would be struck with the arrows. Hereupon many died from fright at the very charge of the pikemen, and many perished hemmed in by the horsemen. Others were knocked over by the pikes or were carried off transfixed. The missiles falling thick upon them from all sides at once struck down many by a mortal blow, rendered many useless for battle, and caused distress to all. They flew into their eyes and pierced their hands and all the other parts of their body and, penetrating their armour, deprived them of their protection and compelled them to expose themselves to each new missile. Thus, while a man was guarding against arrows or pulling out one that had stuck fast he received more wounds, one after another." -Dio, Roman History (XL.22, 23).
Plutarch in the "Life of Crassus wrote that at the Battle of Carrhae, the Parthian arrows were penetrating Roman shields and riveting the soldier's hands and/or arms to their shields.
Newer isn't always better.
Roman had running water and sewage systems. Something that didn't exist in Medieval Europe. A lot of tech was lost over time
Testing Roman armor and shields against medieval longbows or crossbows? Quick someone send this idea and these items to Todd at Todd's Workshop so he can use his lockdown longbow and medieval crossbow against them now!!!!
It's self explanatory, Mary Rose longbows would pierce them like tuna cans, maybe composite bows didn't perform with such heavy missiles
Americans seeing Italians in media: "Come on, writers, there's more to Italians than their cuisine!"
Italians: "This pasta was ok, I guess, but it wasn't *art.*"
10:46 - metatron is moving onto maces and warhammers. What is interesting is that most examples are actually about as short as a gladius - illustrating my previous point - at close quarters, fighting in group situations, shorter offensive weapons are generally better.
Romans did fight the Irish which did have Maces, and Warhammer and fought poorly against them in Great Conspiracy, Wales in 391-393, and the Irish Invasion of Western England in 401 AD.; Romans didn't wear full armor usually.so once you disrupted the usefulness of shields and formations it was game over.
@@bmc7434 Also, the Roman's lacked the strong logistics and organizational systems of the earlier Empire. The imperial government in western Brittania was very weak in spots by this era, if not outright gone in areas. There's also the question of how much-standardized gear even remained in Britannia by the 5th century. Many of the soldiers might have been virtually indistinguishable from other Celtic warriors.
B Mc Disrupting the usefulness of shields and formations was easier said than done. Hence a half millennium of Roman hegemony in Europe, Africa and the near East where Roman drills were bloodless battles and Roman battles were bloody drills.
@@bmc7434 like with the medieval times we have to differ between the romans at the height of theirbpower under trajan and the chaotic unstructured situation at the end. At 400 most legions were composed from localy recrewted personal, and the army made heavy use of the local fighting style. at 400 the armor and weapons shown and mentioned in the video werent used by the romans anymore
Me as modern Eastern Roman: "I don't get the title"
Metatron: Medieval weapons vs Roman armor.
Medieval Eastern Romans: wait, are we not included in this?
Turns out, no, roman armour can't save you from medieval weapons.
*Cries in 4th crusade*
@@spamhonx56 There wasn't a real fight, 3/4 of the Byzantine army just left the city without a fight since their state had no money to pay them anymore.
@Alvi Syahri Can a single Modern solider fight 200.000 Romans
Turns out the modern solider died. Does this mean Roman weapons where better? I think not.
@Alvi Syahri 1 vs 200.000k wasn't a real fight.
Just like 20.000 Crusaders vs a few thousand residents not even soilders at all, fighting for their home, isn't a real fight between medieval romans and Crusaders. Since the underpaid military left the city without a fight.
14:09 This reminds me of this line from The Last Kingdom: "Lord, you cannot simply execute your subjects as you please. This is the ninth century."
Wooo this channel is Awesome!!!
Thank you very much!
@Dana Amin you have been blessed by the Metatron!
@Sir Pepe of House Kek i see no god up here, except for me
Talking about heat-treating medieval armour, while holding the Cherbourg cuirass, which was air-cooled, is kinda misleading.
True, It was infact nornalised, but my modern replica has been hear treated, so I was using It as an example of that because of it, but probably I should have said that yes.
@@metatronyt Since a lot of medieaval armour was created to resembel classical armour were there ever cases of medieaval people complitely re-creating classical armour? Like did some italian soldier decide to use a steel corinthian helmet? I would imagine that the design would still have been pretty effective.
Well, that’s kinda where the barbute came from, afaik.
@@qwertyqwerty-ek7dy Seeing as they would only have access to artistic depictions of them, and only if they lived near to a place Romans left said artistic depictions, it would have been difficult for them. Archaeology wasn't a thing and you couldn't just ask who had a cache of centuries-old armors and weapons to investigate.
@@gabrielinostroza4989 There were plenty of statues around italy and greece to atleast get a helmet right. 🤔
Since you've already included footage from Mount and Blade in this video: there is a mod called "Prophesy of Pendor" which has a greco-roman inspired faction called the "Baccus Empire" (yes THAT Baccus). The modders have designed their equipment to give off a classical vibe, but at the same time be more on par with medieval technology (and the current emperor still thinks that they are falling behind and tries to modernise the military, much to the dislike of the traditionalists). I personally think they did a good job. Maybe you want to give it a look.
I hope, that this medi-evil period will be followed by a medi-good..
It was, but the medi-good period is coming to an end right now
Oh man, those are some nice Bretonnians in the beginning of the video! GW really did not give them a chance after their 6th Ed refresh.
Roman metallurgy vs. medieval mounted lance? NO CHANCE!
Many types of Roman armor were already insufficient against powerful bows and lances of the ancient/classical world. According to Cassius Dio's "Roman History Book XL," at the Battle of Carrhae, Parthian arrows were flying into the Romans' eyes, piercing their hands, and even penetrating their armor. Dio also wrote that the lances of Parthian cataphracts impaled the Roman soldiers through their armor and sometimes then carried them away while impaled: "For if they decided to lock shields for the purpose of avoiding the arrows by the closeness of their array, the pikemen were upon them with a rush, striking down some, and at least scattering the others; and if they extended their ranks to avoid this, they would be struck with the arrows. Hereupon many died from fright at the very charge of the pikemen, and many perished hemmed in by the horsemen. Others were knocked over by the pikes or were carried off transfixed. The missiles falling thick upon them from all sides at once struck down many by a mortal blow, rendered many useless for battle, and caused distress to all. They flew into their eyes and pierced their hands and all the other parts of their body and, penetrating their armour, deprived them of their protection and compelled them to expose themselves to each new missile. Thus, while a man was guarding against arrows or pulling out one that had stuck fast he received more wounds, one after another." -Dio, Roman History (XL.22, 23).
Plutarch in the "Life of Crassus wrote that at the Battle of Carrhae, the Parthian arrows were penetrating Roman shields and riveting the soldier's hands and/or arms to their shields.
Intranet a medieval army would probably lose at that situation all the same.
@@FilipMoncrief That really depends. The Roman army in the late Republic and during the Principate/early Empire was extremely dependent heavy infantry to the neglect of other troop types. They had very small numbers of ranged/skirmisher troops and cavalry attached to them. At the Battle of Carrhae, the Romans only had 4,000 skirmishers/light infantry (composed of slingers, javeliners, and/or archers), which is only around 10% of their entire force. A medieval army would have contained more ranged troops, and would be better at dealing with enemy horse archers since they could exchange fire. A higher proportion of cavalry would also allow medieval troops to better counter an enemy cavalry army. An English army of the late middle ages had a high proportion of archers, and the French army at the battle of Crecy contained something like 10-20% crossbowmen with a high proportion of cavalry.
Intranet It’s worth mentioning that Roman soldiers at Carrhae wore the mail lorica hamata, not the plated lorica segmentata. Segmentata probably held up better against arrows of the time... But I don’t think either will stop a lance or longbow arrow. Roman armor metallurgy was not a match for high grade Late Medieval metallurgy, and even that had some difficulty resisting longbow arrows. Plus a longbow arrow will go straight through a scutum, and a Roman soldier’s arms and legs are unarmored and vulnerable.
Intranet I agree, Medieval armies were much better suited to countering cavalry, both light and heavy. Knights had serious advantages enabling them to destroy Parthian cataphracts. Infantry with Medieval war bows and crossbows would murder any Parthian horse archers which tried to shoot it out with them.
Medieval light infantry was a liability, but as long as the knights and foot archers were able to screen for them, they could stand their ground.
The Romans were a remarkable fighting force, but they lacked reliable soldiers to engage large amounts of cavalry effectively. They lacked the mobility to engage light cavalry and the equipment to resist heavy cavalry. When they did win against Parthia, it was through superior tactical brilliance of Roman commanders and clever use of terrain.
When we look at the Vendel era (550-700) helmets from Valsgärde and Vendel they are quite clearly Roman helmets with barbarian bling added. Same with the migration / viking era sword, it is very similar to a Roman long sword (courtesy of Shadiversity for pointing this out). And in the dark ages mail was less common than in Roman era.
Super interesting! Now maybe do a video on how the fighting styles differ, once you determine a good period of time to compare. A more in depth video like that would be thrilling!
I feel like from watching this video I could definitely see how your video editing has improved over the years.
excellent video Metatron, thank you for all your time and knowledge
My pleasure thank you for watching!
it would of been hilarious if you used the photo of the 2 legionaries handling a mg42 as the thumbnail of this vid.
This has certainly got my mind wandering a bit on designs now.
Does anyone know if anyone has made Roman style armour but with medieval level (of any medieval period) smithing techniques and materials?
I'm just trying to picture what that might look like. Almost certainly it would mean the arms would have gambison-like coverings with chain mail over the top in some cases, and the same probably true for the legs. I can imagine there would probably be a thicker series of plates over the shoulders, chest and torso. And I think the helmets might become a more solid overall design rather then the lose fitting side plates.
Now imagine a steel version of the Gladius as well, maybe with a wider guard.
This is an informative and very accurate video. Credit to Metatron for explaining a complex subject well, as always.
Good topic to walk through, I was watching a chat with History Bro and he touched on King Alfred and said something similar to you about the classification of his time period saying he lived in the dawn of early medieval but you could also call it late antiquity
Who’s here for the pasta, and who’s here for the knight? I’m here for both. 😂
this is for the algorithm.
Good work.
It worked
"ALL HAIL THE ALGORITHM..."....wait...
Excelent video. I was impressed at how you managed to avoid any bias in your narrative.
Excellent show - thanks!
9:54. The advantage of longer ranged swords really only relates to ‘one on one’ fights. In a shield wall - which is how the romans fought in teams - a shorter offensive weapon is a much much better option. Gallic long swords and high quality cavalry swords of the classical era were probably not overly inferior to the medieval swords that Metatron is comparing. The gladius was clearly superior to all - when teamed with the scutum in a basic Roman formation of 300-500 men, 6 files deep that is pushing-punching with the scutum and stabbing with the gladius in a rolling wall of death.
"In a shield wall - which is how the romans fought in teams" - romans didnt fight in shield wall. And short sword is quite useless in shield wall.
Mike Ritter ok. Are you just being a pedant? I was referring to a “shield wall” as a loose descriptor encompassing a range of infantry tactics, including that of legionaries. Further, if you are referring to the Norse “Shield Wall”, then yes - short thrusting weapons were brutally effective. Axes could pull a shield down but a knife, seax or short sword was the gutting tool of choice.
@@andrewmetcalfe9898 Legion was not fighting in shield wall, and not in "shield wall like" formation. Legionaries were fighting in "rather loose" close formation with space beetwen two was about 0,5 to 1 meter. Definitely not "arm to arm" formation. To use gladius (and change ranks in combat) in way they were trained they need quite a lot of space.
About weapons - I fought in shield wall and nope, you have no space or sensible range to effectively use "short thrusting weapon" similar to gladius. You use spear or cuting weapons as karoling/viking sword, axe or seax or kind of mace.
If you say that gladius is weapon for close tight formation, ask roman legionaree recreator how convinient and efficient is to use it in testudo....
Mike Ritter Despite your experience as a re-enactor (unless you have a TARDIS and actually travelled back in time to fight for real in a shield wall) I have re-read my initial post & it seems we only really differ in emphasis and degree. One thing that is intriguing about the Romans is that detailed tactics and manoeuvres are rarely described in depth by the original sources. You assume that the legions fought in a rather loose formation as you describe: while I reckon they certainly had the flexibility to adapt and fight that way, I am not convinced at all that was their standard tactic. I reckon that for much of their engagement with a massed enemy that they legions would have formed a proper shield wall and pushed pushed pushed and only used the Gladius as a weapon of opportunity until the enemy tired and started to break. I also reckon that the Roman use of their short ranged throwing weapon, wedge tactics etc were all designed to break the enemy before exhaustion set in. Whether because of exhaustion or other tactics, I reckon it likely that it was only after an enemy lost cohesion that the legionaries would fight in that ‘rather loose’ formation you describe.
Regarding a Viking shield wall. Again when the shields were interlocked and the walls were pushing against each other, obviously there would be no space to use any sort of thrusting weapon; but once the walls cohesion was lost - even temporarily by say an axe looping over the top of one shield and pulling it out then a short thrusting weapon can be used as a weapon of opportunity to gut the man behind that shield. You mention the Saex: in a shield wall that would be its purpose: groin or gut thrusts when opportunity presented.
@@mikeritter7207 I'd like to mention you'd have a lot of space with a shorter weapon, such as a gladius. It's... Kind of a given as the weapon is, y'know, shorter and takes up less space. You mention cutting weapons, but those take up more space? A gladius and spatha are thrusting weapons. Thrusts don't require as much space as a cutting weapon which needs a swing.
Nonetheless, lack of range wasn't actually a problem for the Romans. It was a benefit. Phalanxes excelled at keeping enemies back and using superior range. The close and tight testudo, however, excelled at closing in. It gets difficult to use 16 foot spears on guys with tower shields when they're getting right in your face and stabbing you with swords. Your spears can easily get tangled and you can't really pull them back as that would just hit the guy behind you.
What about roman weapons against medieval armor types? I would like for heavier weapons, like the roman scorpio (yes, technically a siege weapon, but it was also used as field artillery) included in this.
The scorpio would likely just go through most targets, it's just in a different weight class. I guess there's a chance for the projectiles to get deflected if they hit at a bad angle.
Medieval armies (like the medieval Eastern Roman Empire) developed better field weapons than the scorpio... As far as infantry weapons, only the pilum would have a chance, but I suspect the ancient Romans would end up switching to two handed polearms like everyone else did.
By the late Middle Ages, armor had become so good that many foot soldiers gave up using shields. This allowed them to use heavy two handed pole weapons which had a better chance to defeat the foes armor. A Halberd carrying foot soldier would probably defeat a Roman with two blows from his weapon. The first would destroy the scutum, the second would cleave the armor and the man inside it. All of this likely occurring beyond the range of his short sword.
@@cliffordjensen8064 I was more concerned with the just the armor's protection and not the vastly different equipment used by the two time periods. I agree that pole arms and two handed weapons would put the Roman soldier at a huge disadvantage. I just wanted to see how good the armor worked out of curiosity mainly.
Your editing is like fine wine, it becomes better and better over time.
Another great video carry on!😀
Very interesting, but one question comes to mind: while a couched lance would likely penetrate the armor of a Roman legionary, what would it do to the shield? A solid army of soldiers in formation was generally a tougher nut to crack for heavy cavalry, and that is exactly what a Roman legion would be in practice.
This question isn't even taking into account the big-picture implications of how a knight-focused army would likely struggle to adapt to a sudden encounter with a massive professional army of heavy infantry. Just as much as the Romans would be caught off-guard, if they ran into these abnormally well-armored, futuristic heavy cavalry...
Idk but fully armored horse weighting 700kg + rider rushing towards you 60km/h would be same as trying to stop a small car with shield formation.
Inferior non-couched lances used by the Parthians handled Roman shields pretty easily.
came for the pasta, stayed for the armor...
very comprehensive. Thanks!
Looking good in the armour, Metatron
If I ever become a director and make a movie about Rome I’m hiring you as my historical consultant.
We all know medieval soldiers would queue overnight for the new year's release of next-gen iArmour.
Love the look of that miniature collection, I’ve recently got into war gaming and collecting miniatures, I currently have a set of celts and imperial Romans, it’s so fun painting and making terrain for them
Just realized I've been following this guy since he had 45k subs.
Continua così Raff! :D
Grazie mille, sei un veterano
I think a monk in the 15th century called his time the “Middle Ages” as in the time between antiquity and the end of the world
Thank you for highlighting impact damage to the head - helmets may spare you the worst of it, but they don't make your head invincible to all damage the way some people seem to suggest it does. A few months ago I took a bad spill on my bicycle and landed head first on the pavement. My speed when I went down was 16+ mph. Fortunately I wear a full-face helmet when riding, so I was spared having my face scraped off onto the pavement, and no broken bones, but I did black out for a few seconds and had a three-day long concussion afterwards. On the battlefield, being knocked out for even just a few seconds is plenty enough time for your opponent to deliver a finishing blow. Helmets are great, wouldn't want to be without one, but don't get overconfident while wearing one, any blow to the head, even with a helmet, is going to hurt!
sststr this can be mitigated with strong neck muscles and some kind of neck support.
@@strengthisabsolutestrength8215 That doesn't change that concussions consist of your brain bouncing around the inside of your skull. Your neck muscles can't keep that from happening.
Hey metatron, sarebbe interessante un tuo video sulla guerra boshin e magari anche della ribellione di satsuma, con la storia di questo periodo in dettaglio, quello che l'ha causato e cosa è successo dopo, e magari gli equipaggiamenti delle due fazioni che combatterono. Ho visto un sacco di tuoi video sul giappone feudale ma mi sembra che tu non abbia ancora fatto nessun video su questa parte di storia e come detto prima sarebbe molto interessante. Ah, ovviamente bel lavoro anche per questo video di oggi, ottimo come sempre! Ciao!
Hey metatron, it would be very interesting if you did a video about the boshin war and maybe also satsuma rebellion, with the history in detail comprehending the causes of the conflict and what happened after and maybe also the equipment of both the factions that have fought. I've seen a lot of your videos about feudal japan but it seems you haven't treated this period yet and as i said earlier it would be really interesting. Oh, also good job for this video too, great as always! Ciao!
Excellent quality video !
Thanks!
So early here, they call me Primus Pilum
I thought that was Titus Pullo
Metatron can you comment on Salvatore’s Italian in Mafia Definitive Edition?
He sounds like someone who maybe used to speak Italian as a child but hasn´t spoken a word of it in 40 years.
That said, he´s probably got the least atrocious pronunciation in the whole game, since he does at least get some of it right.
Nevertheless, he sounds like he´s got no clue as to what he´s actually saying.
Yes, I realise I´m not Metatron...
K. Forsythe Wait other characters only say small phrases like buona fortuna ragazzi and such. Are those sound unnatural too?
@@richardharrow2513 Yes, even though they say very little, it´s apparent that the voice actors don´t have the slightest idea as to how Italian pronunciation works.
I mean, you´d kind of expect that they wouldn´t sound like they´re actual Italians, but somebody could have told them that f.ex. the suffix -one isn´t pronounced "own", or that "Ghillotti" isn´t "Jillotti", "Salvatore" isn´t "Salvatowr", that sort of stuff.
It doesn´t matter in the end, the voice acting is great overall, this is just a minor thing that is immediately apparent to the ear of a native speaker.
By the way, I just remembered that the Salvatore character at one point says "molto grazie" (essentially "much thanks"), which is just ungrammatical (it´s "molte grazie" - "many thanks"), so yeah, I´m guessing he really doesn´t know what he´s saying. Again, it doesn´t matter, it´s a nice story, this sort of stuff doesn´t take anything away from it.
K. Forsythe Also at one point Tommy says va dietro (no cognate in English as far as I can tell) and yet he’s unable to understand such obvious words as allarme (alarm) of labirinto (labyrinth)
Excellent video. :)
You're wearing the Gallic variant (50 BC-AD 100) of the helmet. The most effective helmets used by legionaries were the Italic helmet. It included a ridge cross on the top of the helmet so it would help stop enemies doing a downward strike with a sword. This helmet was developed during Trajan's Dacian Wars to prevent Dacians from cutting straight down the middle of a legionary helmet with a Falx. At first this ridge was optional but eventually it became mandatory for soldiers to include on their helmet.
METATRON POG ?? METATRON POG
The romans had medieval armor though it varied when in the medieval era you were. So it should probably be Classical Roman Armour as you say in the video. The roman Empire didn't fall till 1453 after all.
You're right, milanese plate armor and gothic plate armor are the best examples of medieval medieval armor.
One could say it never really did fall or disappear entirely. It always existed in some way shape or form. From influence to tradition to stylization. Rome is the foundation of Europe and the middle ages were built from its ruins. Literally.
@@canadious6933 I was specifically referring to the fact that the "Byzantine Empire" is just the Medieval Roman Empire. They called themselves Romans and believed that they lived in the Roman Empire and generally were considered by those around them to being Roman.
Canadious I agree with you.
1204*
Metatron, LOVE your channel sir and would REALLY appreciate a longer video/series on the Post-Marian/Imperial legion order of battle. Specifically, your perception on the tactics used when the legions or vexilatios were deployed en-mass, the centurion cycling out his front line etc, etc. Given your expertise, I would LOVE to hear your perspective and ideas sir! ROMA INVICTA!
Amazing video. When are you going to make a video about the 14th century Portuguese Knight? I would love to see you cover that.
No one talking about the thumbnail, like holy shit XD
One on one, I think the average Roman legionary would lose to an average Medieval knight of let's say the 11th century owing to better technology. However, I think the Romans were much better at organization. At the battle of Zama, Scipio fielded an Army of around 35,000. At the Battle of Hastings, there there likely fewer than 25,000 on both sides. Same sort of thing for the Battle of Agincourt. True, the battle of Brunwald has something just under 70,000 men total, a very good size, but the Romans had about that many at Alesia. Moreover, the Romans could sustain huge losses from time to time, and STILL win wars (Battle of Cannae for example).
This is all to to say that while Roman weapons and armor were not as good as their high medieval counterparts, they could field a large, professional army relatively quickly, and they could keep pressing that army until one side or the other was vanquished.
I may add that if we would put the roman Empire at its peak vs any european country of the late Middle Age, the romans would be very quick to learn the new "meta" of warfare and even if they'd lose the first battles, they would become better at it surprisingly fast, given how they could enroll new legions very quickly as you said. This video is definitely correct regarding the comparation of different equipment, but it doesn't mean romans couldn't stand a chance in the "real" medieval context.
True. Standardized equipment, training and discipline gives you a big advantage over sporadically equipped levies.
@Jay M What is to say that the mass of archers would be static? They weren't just left in a big blob shooting about. They started off infront of the battle line and shot several volleyes until the enemy got close, then proceeded to retreat back through the ranks and when the main engagement was ago, they'd move off to the sides and start shooting the enemy into the back and flanks until they ran out of arrows at which point they'd ditch their bows and go into melee (again charging the enemy backs and flanks). Medieval longbowmen were a lot of things, but the only time to call them static would be when comparing them to mounted archers.
Something you didn’t touch upon was the use of the padded armor under the plate or mail. This greatly improves the armors ability to protect against blunt impact damage.
Outstanding vídeo
I find it oddly cute how the cheek plates wiggle when he speaks, lol. No homo, of course.
Loose lobsters n their ribald ways...
@Jay M someone obviously never watched The Boondocks
There's a piece of medieval armor especially on that breastplate that he either forgot about or did not know about. That decorative shaped V breast plate ornament. It's not just decorative it's also functional. You will see things similar to that on most medieval art depictions of knights with lances for a reason. It's designed to channel wooden shrapnel away from the face and eyes. Either from arrows that hit and shatter or from Lance's that break. There is actually a UA-cam video where they discuss and experiment with it. The guy who actually has the UA-cam channel was surprised at how functional it actually was at channeling shrapnel away from the face.
Doubtful
Ottima idea per questo nuovo video! Mi sono reso conto anche che ho il tuo stesso gladio! 😆 Risalente a quando facevo rievocazione romana.
Great video!
Archers were a valuable unit. especially those who shot high poundage bows. as armor improved, less archers were effective.
It seems, that one point is missing. It's numbers.
In roman legions - almost all legioners had decent coat of armor (maybe exept auxiliary). In medieval feodal army - well, nobility would be armored from toes to head, men-at-arms as well (in cheaper versions, but still)... but levies (who had outnumbered previous groups several times each)... I dont think so.
If compare, lets say, two armies - two legions (app. 16 000 men) from dacian wars timeline and equal in size army from early XII cent. France. Half of each legion - 8000 men from two in total - are heavy infantry ("proper" legioners in modern terms), each legioner is armored (lorica segmentata or lorica squamata, subarmalis, coolus helmet, scutum, often manica of both arms) in similar maner as ordinary knight (mail hauberk, gambeson, nasal helmet, kite shield) in terms of protection. No great helms, no armets, no full plate, no brigandine, not even single one destrier - that stuff was not invented/breeded yet.
How many knights could be in that french army of 16000 men? From 1500 to 3000, I think.
Men-at-arms would be armored less so - usually gambeson without mail shirt. Levies... well, you know. Auxillary could be compared equal to french archers and crossbowmen at that age.
French does not have at that time no firearms nor powerfull crossbows.
Yes, french would have significantly better cavalry (roman ones, about 1000 i think, would lose for sure against knights), but roman infantry will win the day via sheer numbers.
And dont forget about roman field artillery - french have nothing similar to scorpions. Well, whey got torsion springalds, but those were used strictly stationaty on fortificationsm so there will be none at battlefield. Mangonels could be compared with onagers - not so good in oper field each.
And also dogs. Roman ones. About 200 or so, huge mastiffs in partial spiked leather armor. Interesting, how usage of those could impact battlefield - in medieval times wardogs were practically forgotten.
Somehow I'm pretty sure, that romans would win that battle - they will lose significant number of troops, maybe more than a half (mostly auxillary, because of knight charges), but will eliminate french infantry to zero - and french chivalery, much less blooded in comparison, will retreat. Score - started with 10/10, ended with 5/2, imho.
That depends on the medieval army they faced and what time period. Consider that the Eastern Roman empire did survive well after the West fell, and they suffered at the hands of Norman knights in Sicily (though Rome's superior infantry beat the Norman footman). A Swiss or Landsknecht mercenary army from later periods would absolutely wreck a similar sized force of ancient legionaries.
Killer Instinct music at the beginning?
Metatron pog
Great video, :) Good job explaining the differences. I never liked the who would win x vs y when one is from a totally different time period. It's like asking who would win, an army from the 11th century or one from the 19th century.... Same time gap as 3nd century to the 11th.
May I sugest a video about Machiavelli's "Art of War"
he sugest a mix betwen the Italian units based on Roman training.
I heard it lacked reality as machiavelli was not a military professional
@@jwyang91 Yeah, that's the point. I have it, and Is very peculiar
Love living in a time with AR500 Steel
Ooooh! Love this!
Good Show. Really enjoy it because they relate much to my interest. More an early medieval guy myself, but it is not only the weapon itself that will make a difference, but also the tactics and use of force. The Rules of Engagement of a specific time period would dictate the warfare and the success of an army. I guess a Roman legion could still maintain itself until the 10th century, but which legion? The one of the early empire (the armor you have) or the late roman army of Constantin. The use of the spatha or gladius would make a difference; different tactics would be used. Nice thoughts.
What about knight armor vs Roman weapons?
Will anyone ever make video of katana/tachi comparison with kriegsmesser? Really tired of comparing katana/tachi with longsword (about 100 videos already)
I'm guessing the amazing variety of messers in general makes it a hard topic that'd be very contentious because "you totally ignored these types of kriegmesser..." while longswords and katanas/taichis were more uniform with mainly chronological, not concurrent, major variants.
@@MechanicaMenace What was variety among kriegsmessers, other than weight and length differences? And of course besides nagel/ring?
@@Kubaaa555 the real defining feature was the hilt. That isn't a small deal but when you take what you mentioned and think they also had straight or curved blades and different degrees of curve it all adds up to major differences. Especially when you think a lot of those differences existed at the same time. I would love to see a video about this but 1) it'd have to be hours long and/or a series and 2) the kriegsmesser will almost certainly win out. I'm a weaboo katana fanboy but 14th to 16th century European swords are going to be better than similar period Japanese just because of the vastly better steel.
@@MechanicaMenace I would like to see albion kriegsmesser against as expensive tachi of similar weight, both cutting multiple tatamis. Matthew Jensen doing good reviews and he had two kriegsmessers, but seems that unfortunately he picked the (too) flexible ones...
@@MechanicaMenace
Longswords also had a large variety. It's the Katana that lacks variery xP
Ah, a fellow Archangel, and making great content too! Great video, super interesting, very well done
You've created my new favorite stock photo, the confused/shocked Roman soldier
Were English longbows really *that* great? I always got the impression a lot of their acclaim came as much from some lucky high profile battles as much as anything else.
Have you seen Tod's Workshop's video where they test a 100+ pound longbow with historically accurate arrows vs. a historically accurate breastplate? While it didn't penetrate the breastplate, the first went low and hit an area covered only by mail and it punched right through the mail.
@@Riceball01 I haven't. Sorry not meaning to be an arse, it was a serious question. I just so happen to be a proud Englishman who is also very aware of how much we big ourselves up and make out something was entirely skill when luck was a big component.
Large masses of bowman firing enmass mean that at least some arrows will find gaps in armor and slowly immobilize soldiers. Also many long bows will have been greater than 100lbs draw. 120lb and 150lb were not unheard of if difficult to use for extended periods of time.
Even a 80 pound bow is enough to penetrate rivited mail. Now imagine what a 140lbs bow would do xd
@@MechanicaMenace I would argue that the English actually have a self-effacing quality in some respects. :D
5:13 - do I believe that arrow shot from a longbow could pierce roman armor? Sure, I even think that bows of roman period could hurt or kill legionnaire - after all arrow don't have to go through armor to be deadly, they just have to hit the spot unprotected by armor ...case and point; battle of Agincourt when french knights of late medieval period were defeated by english bowmen even though french forces outnumbered invading army of Henry V. And that's a thing; when people are talking about versus battles thenthey tend to focus on stats of both sides, not on tactics. And if battle of Agincourt teaches us anything is that theoretically superior army can be overcome with clever tactics - and romans were very good tacticians and strategists. Also I think that entire point about longbows penetrating lorica segmentata is moot when you consider that romans would use testudo formation against archers and other long range combatants
They would still be injured through their shields, as happened at Carrhae against substantially lighter bows. An arrow through the arm may not kill you, but it will certainly impede your ability to fight.
Just have to look at the modern period with reissue of WW1 equipment and even earlier to fight in WW2. Enjoyed your presentation.
I can't stop grining when the cheek plates move and clack when he speaks.
Bloody hell. Didnt see that until i read this comment. Now its all i can focus on.
metatron what do you know about kalaripayattu is it the mother of all martial arts fact and true and can i learn it in america with going to its place of birth and can i learn it at any age just like every martial art because martial arts have no age limit
It's not the mother of all martial arts at all, that's purely baseless propaganda. It's not even the oldest known, or even the oldest surviving martial art. However, it *is* an extremely old martial art, and, according to Shaolin lore, Bodhidharma, a South Indian Buddhist monk, presumably trained in, established what would go on to become the Shaolin martial tradition. Considering his own martial training and his South Indian ancestry, it is hypothesized that he was trained in Kalaripayattu. However, assuming this tale is true, that would make Kalaripayattu the ancestral martial art of only Shaolin kung fu, and related styles of CMA. Other styles, of both CMA and other martial arts from other parts of the world, had their own origins distinct from and unrelated to Kalaripayattu.
@@Vlad_Tepes_III can you learn any martial art at any age
@@gerardocovarrubias1127 Yes, so long as we are not permanently bedridden for the foreseeable future, we can learn any martial art at any age. One thing to keep in mind when beginning to learn at an advanced age, however, is to not be disheartened upon witnessing practitioners younger than us performing better than we are, because they have been learning and training for longer than we have.
One of the first!
Another great video, thanks once again!
You could also make the case that the Roman Empire itself extended into the 15th century, too. From my understanding, people in what we currently think of as the "Byzantine Empire" mostly thought of themselves as the "Roman Empire" at the time, too.
Saludos desde España crack @Metatron
Metatron! Did you get my email? Are Sardinians like Italians? I also wanna visit Sardinia one day. Roma Invicta by the way!
not really, they are like a pure breed superior race
Sercroc Could you further explain that to me?
Patrick Becker Maybe like Germanic ‘cause the modern German people are different today.
@@elijahc.brooks3493 They are trolling you. They are like italians but shorter.
The Dark Knight No, man! I have a very small percentage of my DNA that’s Sardinian.
poleaxe, was my guess
Halberd .
Goedendag?
Metatron pog
Metatron pog
Ave frater. I'm Italian , and i'm part of the XIII legion ( the Caesar's one) .
I really like your channel.
Vale.
Next time, there will be no memory of jerusalem.
Early on in the medieval period, actually most of it, the Roman legions would walk all over them, all those peasants...against a uniform, well equipped, well trained professional army, the few knights would be easily overwhelmed after they killed/routed all the peasants. The empire had far more legionnaires than Europe had knights. And you act like the romans wouldn’t evolve their equipment, strategies and tactics, like they did, which is why they became the most powerful empire ever, and beat the Greeks regularly, who were one of their biggest competitors. If you could make two Europe’s, one the whole Roman Empire, against the fractured feudal European kingdoms, medieval Europe wouldn’t stand a chance against that, unless you counted cannon and gun powder.
So you're saying that if Rome had the tech of medieval Europe, while retaining the numbers and order of their own time, that they would win? Good to know.
No it would not, the newer steel of medieval swords would be so much harder than the crappy armours of equally crappy elder rome that they could literally pierce the said crappy armours
Chad real roman empire gang > crappy elder rome dorks 😎
I love how you basically made a new meme template.
Good job pasta man
I just wanna say the thumbnail looks amazing lol