Medieval knights would destroy a roman legion.
>>18518548also gothic cathedrals are more sophisticated than anything romans ever built
No shit. The true question is would a levy of peasants beat Roman legionnaires?
>>18518557>would a levy of peasants beat Roman legionnairesWhat era, how armed, and what's their motivation?
>>18518557Depends on what time period the legion from and what you mean by "left of peasants" as that wasn't really much of a thing- and what time period it's from. You're talking variating to the degree of "they're mostly heavy infantry with actual armor and guns" to "line of men with spears"
>>18518548Ottoman Janissaries would destroy both at the same time
>>18518548They couldn't even destroy a keil.
Nah christcuck knights would get overwhelmed by superior tactics.
>>18518673Not really. I mean they fumbled Vienna multiple times despite the odd being in their favor. So yes ottomans would beat a roman legionary but it's more a toss up against Knights of their era.
>>18518787Janissaries dealt with modern era musketmen and pike and shot cavalry not medieval knightsOttoman janissaries absolutely destroyed medieval knights in the 1400s
Which Roman legion? The legion changed a lot over the centuries. I would say that medieval heavy cavalry would beat most incarnations of the legion, though. The Romans always struggled against cavalry until the later empire, when they finally got serious about developing a true cavalry force. Prior to this they had only adapted to specific cavalry forces they encountered, at need, which meant there was no real institutional system within the Roman military for dealing with them. Their most common solution to coming against formidable cavalry was "hire barbarians who are good at horses to fight them". TL;DR 4th century or earlier, medieval knights win easily.
>>18518673Like 12 Serbian knights held off Tamerlane’s entire flanking attack for six hours. Leading to him saying he could have conquered the entire world if his army was Serbian.
>>18518958Serbia was Ottoman's favorite and most loyal state and they received Janissary training and yes you are correctKeep in mind the Timurids were literally the only state of the era the Ottomans were absolutely terrified of to the point they actively avoided engaging with the massive Mongol blob to his east and decided to conquer the crusaders to west instead
>>18518673This. And they already did. Rome/Europe would've been deleted if they didn't disease bomb and priest class infiltrate civilian populations.Muslims were the first world power. That's why Europe wasn't enough of a force on its own that could've caught up. They needed the moorish numbers of Spain to claim anything. Could not win through might makes right.
>>18518548>more advanced technology would beat less advanced technologyWow, you must be some kind of genius to figure that out. Now tell me, do you think a modern infantry squad kitted with M4A1s with a bunch of attachments, kevlar, radio, and air support, and riding in an APC would beat a pike and shot formation? I eagerly await you weighing in on the subject.
>>18518958>Leading to him saying he could have conquered the entire world if his army was Serbian.Every Balkan nationality claims that some great conqueror made a statement of that sort.
>>18518973Anon the military technology available to the two parties is functionally identical. The only exception is stirrups, which are not the giant game changer people assume on its own.
>>18518548a 14th century knight would certainly beat a roman legionsome random dark age anglo-saxon army from the 7th century, not a chance
>>18519230>>Anon the military technology available to the two parties is functionally identicalplease do not talk about subjects you have absolutely no knowledge of. You fucking imbecile. Romans didn't even have fucking stirrups for their cavalry and you think they've got equivalent kit to a medieval knight with centuries of metallurgic improvements in their mail and armor alone, to say nothing of superior weapons.
>>18519244>Stirrups Nowhere near as significant as you think, which I already mentioned. >Muh metallurgy Not substantially better for the vast majority of the medieval period. It'd make absolutely no difference in actual combat. >WeaponsSee above. You're talking about arming swords that would be broadly comparable to a spatha in context. It's elite cavalry wearing iron mail with lances-with their lance technique in the latter half of the period being the first real advancement - and 3 foot swords made of mild steel fighting against.... cavalry wearing iron mail and wielding 3 foot long swords made of very mild steel a d wielding their lances in a more traditional manner. The biggest change would be better coverage with the mail, different lance technique, and high backed saddles. The infantry is even LESS differentiated technologically, with most medieval infantry being flatly inferior as they'd have less armor on average than any legion from the late Republic on. And even then, it's iron helmets, iron spears, and iron/mild steel sidearms. One side throws javelins, one retains spears for stabbing. One near universally wears mail, the other doesn't. Move earlier or later in the Roman Empire and it's even less differentiated.
>>18519233Shhhh anons don't know the difference and WILL get upset if you explain it.
>>18518973Bringing modern warfare into it just highlights how slow the medieval advancements were. Some late republic/early empire legionaries dropped at the Battle of Hastings would have a better chance of meaningfully contributing than WWII soldiers dropped in current day Ukraine.
>>18518896But janissaries got raped by Spanish and Polish knight
>>18518548Ancient Egypt had nuclear weapons.
>>18518673>Ottoman Janissaries would destroy both at the same time
A Roman legion would include Roman cavalry and skirmishers. I don't see how Knights, which are just either cavalry or dismounted infantry, going to beat that until the 14th Century AD
>>18521212>I don't see how heavy infantry or heavy cavalry will beat light infantry and light cavalry
112 knights might fuck up 500 legionaries, but the legionaries will keep fighting, they will hold formation and continue to fight even if their commander is killed, the shock of the initial charge won't trigger a rout and the knights will get bogged down into a war of attrition before getting exhausted and overwhelmed, as at the Battle of Nicopolis against the Ottoman Janissaries, similar full time disciplined infantry.
>>18521420Anon, everything you just said is retarded >Battle of Nicopolis You have no idea what actually happened at that batte do you?
>>18521352Roman cavalry was a mix of light and heavy, and my reply insinuates that the legion had a mix of light and heavy in both infantry and cavalry
>>18521930Roman heavy cavalry would get crushed with absolute ease by even the earliest knights, anon. You're talking about men on smaller, inferior horses with AT BEST overarm spear going against men with generally better armor, vastly better tack, better horses, vastly higher morale, better training, and bigger, stronger horses. It wouldn't be a fight, there's a REASON that even contemporaries of knights universally reformed their cavalry to varying degrees after facing them.
