Let’s have a hypothetical battle?
Problem by Old Scratch: Let us have a hypothetical battle?
It’s between a Roman army of a hundred and fifty AD and a French army of 1200 AD. Would the legionaries have the day with their purchase, instruction, and supreme self-discipline, or would the French knights, though impetuous and fairly few in amount, break the Roman army with their plate armor, devastating charge, and lifelong talent at arms? Would the Roman’s require to bring in provincial auxiliaries, like elephants, mounted archers, or cataphracts? Or would the medieval army require to use crossbow and pike mercenaries to secure a victory? If the legion survived the cost of the knights, would the French infantry stand any likelihood towards the Romans? Who do you believe would arrive out on top rated?
Best answer:
Reply by fore4kicks
dude ill grab a gun LMAO
Include your very own solution in the feedback!
Romans. I hate France’s history.
chuck norris will come out on top.
Romans, By virtue of total madness and dedication to war.
Well, I tend to side with a legionnaire of any sort, but I think that the cross bow would be difficult to get around. The Roman archers would have to be on top to negate that. I think they really would need some elephants, just to confuse the hell out of the French.
I think the Romans would have won. Technologically, little changed since the time of Rome up until the 1200s. The French Monarchy was not as strong as it would later become and the Roman legions were much better organized and trained. The French army of 1200 would have been much like a large band of looters while the Romans were an actual army built for combat.
Maybe the Romans they adapt to the cross bows and armor