Roman legion vs William Wallace's army

I'm not sure but we should definitely bring in some ballistic dummies with fake blood in them to find out.
 
Romans easily. Better gear and better military tactics.


Throw in some samurais in there and it gets interesting :D
 
Romans beat all pre gunpowder armies except the mongols imo
 
As a proud Scot I have to say...Romans by Arm Bar.

Romans were better trained and better equipped, at least for a infantry battle on open ground between two large groups of warriors. They were highly disciplined and used to fighting as part of a large team.

One on one, the average Roman soldier was nothing special, and they got their shit pushed in by Celts and Germans if forced out of their comfort zone. Celtic and Germanic warriors were, on average, bigger and stronger, and their culture emphasized glory in personal combat. So they were more skilled at that type of fighting than the Romans. However, Roman Legions were so well trained and led, for the most part, that they were usually able to dictate the battleground.

A Scottish army under Robert de Bruce would be a far worse match up for the Romans. Bruce would have Archers, which he could use to weaken the massed ranks of the Legion. Once broken up, infantry was no match for heavy cavalry.
 
Which period of Roman Legion?

Romulus Era?
Cincinnatus Era?
Scipio Era?
Marius Era?
Cesar Era?
Early Imperial Era?
Late Imperial Era?
 
Dizzy said:
I'm not sure but we should definitely bring in some ballistic dummies with fake blood in them to find out.
Click to expand...

epic idea. then we can run 1000 simulations to see who is the best
 
Roman legion as in one roman legion, or as in the entire roman army?
Because William Wallace had over 6000 men, and a roman legion was never that large even in the earlier periods of the empire.
 
Probably the roman legion then. It was more or less designed to beat the kind of armed uprising Wallace represented. When reading about it, it is incredible that Wallace even managed to defeat the English army in a pitched battle.

Then again, when roman legions were beaten they were usually beaten by patriotic guerilla forces with a home field advantage, so...
 
Halge said:
Probably the roman legion then. It was more or less designed to beat the kind of armed uprising Wallace represented. When reading about it, it is incredible that Wallace even managed to defeat the English army in a pitched battle.

Then again, when roman legions were beaten they were usually beaten by patriotic guerilla forces with a home field advantage, so...
Click to expand...

Exactly what happened when they invaded Scotland. They completely besmirched the Picts during the first battles, so the Picts changed their game and started to use hit and run tactics. They would attack Roman units at night, or in terrain that negated the Legion's ability fight as a large body of men, such as heavily wooded areas or marsh lands. They avoided open battle whenever possible.

The Romans thought this was dashed unsporting. They expected the Picts to line up and be slaughtered like good barbarians. Sneaking up behind a chap and slitting his throat on a cold, dark night was Not Playing the Game. Eventually, worn down by years of guerilla warfare in a land of rough terrain, appalling weather and howling savages who would rape, kill and eat you(and that was just the Pictish women:))the Romans thought, sod this for a game of legionnaires, built a couple of Game of Thrones sets and buggered off South.
 
KnightTemplar said:
Exactly what happened when they invaded Scotland. They completely besmirched the Picts during the first battles, so the Picts changed their game and started to use hit and run tactics. They would attack Roman units at night, or in terrain that negated the Legion's ability fight as a large body of men, such as heavily wooded areas or marsh lands. They avoided open battle whenever possible.

The Romans thought this was dashed unsporting. They expected the Picts to line up and be slaughtered like good barbarians. Sneaking up behind a chap and slitting his throat on a cold, dark night was Not Playing the Game. Eventually, worn down by years of guerilla warfare in a land of rough terrain, appalling weather and howling savages who would rape, kill and eat you(and that was just the Pictish women:))the Romans thought, sod this for a game of legionnaires, built a couple of Game of Thrones sets and buggered off South.
Click to expand...


On a related note, the successfulness of Romans campaign can be partially attributed to how centralized of a society their enemies possessed. Societies that have developed cities have a fixed keypoint. If you occupy their cities, you control the territory. However, when the Romans encountered people that hadn't evolved to that point yet (such as the Picts or the Germans), pacification became enormously harder. If there are no cities to conquer -- then where do you march to? The army just strolls around -- attacking tiny villages and pursuing migrating tribes. But that's no way to control an area. The country is simply to decentralized and robust to be properly managed, guarded and controlled. The Romans usually constructed fortresses to compensate for this -- but that only takes you so far. It's no coincidence that Roman conquest ended where city-societies also ended.
 
Nate and Nick Diaz travel back in time and stockton slap both armies in to quitting faster than mcgregor
 
europe1 said:
On a related note, the successfulness of Romans campaign can be partially attributed to how centralized of a society their enemies possessed. Societies that have developed cities have a fixed keypoint. If you occupy their cities, you control the territory. However, when the Romans encountered people that hadn't evolved to that point yet (such as the Picts or the Germans), pacification became enormously harder. If there are no cities to conquer -- then where do you march to? The army just strolls around -- attacking tiny villages and pursuing migrating tribes. But that's no way to control an area. The country is simply to decentralized and robust to be properly managed, guarded and controlled. The Romans usually constructed fortresses to compensate for this -- but that only takes you so far. It's no coincidence that Roman conquest ended where city-societies also ended.
Click to expand...

Breh, dat field advantage.

No field to deploy properly = we fucked.
Hit and run, ambush tactics in unknown, dense enemy territories = Varrus giv legion back pl0x.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

helax
  • Sportsbook Event
Boxing: 7.6 11pm ET William Zepeda vs Giovanni Cabrera
Replies
0
Views
199
helax
helax

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,254,467
Messages
56,648,824
Members
175,333
Latest member
dubhlinn

Share this page

Back
Top