How strong were late middle age knights compared to roman legionaire
>lust provoking image
>>64659973yeah
>>64659973Kinda looks fruity.
>>64660001>He doesnt know
>>64659973big dick energy
>>64659973Is that even a fucking question? Legionaries were just grunts. Their advantage came from being professional soldiers in a world where most armies were, at best, reservists. Their gear was good, for their time, but they wouldn't last a minute against a real late-era knight. Knights spent their entire lives preparing for battle, and their gear was custom-built and expensive as hell. Plus, they usually had horses, and Romans usually didn't do great against cavalry during their own time, let alone against bigger, stronger, and more heavily armoured medieval horses.
>>64659973>Professional soldier with fitness and training standards >1000+ year time gap in metalurgy A sword that can be hit against other swords was functionally unheard of before ~1150. Besides the skin of metal their weapons wouldn't even bite into it'd be pretty pants shitting in and of itself to learn what a counter cut was by getting hit in the clavicle. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YmSb7QBTAGc
Someone like your pic, a noble of a martial class of society who has trained every day since he could walk and is decked out in the absolute technological peak of place armor? VERY fucking strong. Unless you got a lucky shot at the joints of the armor (which would require a thinner weapon sword made of advanced steel) basically the only way to beat them was to wrestle them to the ground and force your way through the tiny joints while they're fighting you the entire time, and obviously they'll have a tremendous advantage in that fighting because they're nearly invulnerable. >just use a blunt weapon broThis is a meme. While blunt weapons WILL hurt more than bladed weapons of course, while theyre moving and fighting and preventing you from getting effective straight on hits, they'll require A LOT of fucking clubbing to take down, its not only thick ass steel its thick ass steel with thick ass padding and spacing underneath, its not like they just didn't think about blunt force while designing these suits. The best way to use blunt objects against them is to get them on the ground and absolutely pummel the shit out of them, in other words, wrestle them to the ground like I said above.Remember the knight is a highly trained noble vs a (admittedly well disciplined) common foot soldier with a miniscule fraction of the training and arming budget of the knight, plus a ONE THOUSAND YEAR gap in technology. I'd 100% expect groups of knights like that to be able to take on groups of Roman legionaires 3-5x their size, easily.
>>64659973God forgive me for using a shitty analogy but it's comparable to Custodes vs Space Marines. Knights were almost literally groomed from birth by virtue of nobility or descendants of other men at arms in the employ of said families. Physically much larger thanks to better nutrition, and trained and drilled relentlessly. On a 1-on-1 these guys would fuck you up. But the Romans were so famous for eschewing single combat that a historic (if apocryphal) story involves the son of the general breaking ranks in the fighting and returning to camp victorious with the the head of the enemy leader and being condemned to execution for violating orders. They often say boot camp is about breaking down the individual and making you part of a team, the Roman military at their height may be the platonic example of that ethos. They AREN'T individuals. If you can break them down into formation-less combat, yeah you can start making progress. But if the formation and resolve holds, they were nigh unstoppable.Assuming it isn't legions vs peasant levees but specifically a cohort of armored knights at their peak vs a Roman legion on open battle with both sides ready I am tempted to say it might be a draw. Romans can oppressively advance but probably wouldn't be effective against knights unless the knights were suicidal, the knights have speed and individual strength and skill but would find it impossible to penetrate to any degree of success. All that being said, I dont know how much 'survival' hardiness the average ennobled knight had. A century of legionaires lost in the wilderness without any human threat would probably be OK if the terrain was even remotely hospitable since they had lots of logistics experience in foraging and living off the land. Not sure if your average French or English knight and their lance would be able to do the same. Depends on what we are defining as strength whether we mean on an individual average or taken as larger groups.
>>646599731v1, same age, the knight would win 95% of the time
>>64659973Actually stronger. Romans were notorious manlets who couldn't carry 80 lbs and it got so bad the legion had to ban pack animals because so many Romans bought donkeys to carry their gear.
>>64661469>God forgive me for using a shitty analogy but it's comparable to Custodes vs Space MarinesGod might forgive you but I won't.
>>64660560the knights wouldnt get to the battlefield in one piece. they would run out of food for their massive horses and then they would just die like any other savage did
