reading this made me do some research.

Hmmm.

I think longbows still win. Shit could go through plate mail.

The other factors can't really remain similar. Remember, the Legions were famous for moving fucking fast, and this whole merry go round chase across France only happened because the French had a terribly slow baggage train.
Brits would've gotten caught weeks previous, but assuming they ended up on Crecy anyway, they'd be facing the full force of the enemy, fully equipped, instead of piecemeal like they did with the french.

>>9211983
Testudo formation. They'd probably still get bogged down a bit, but they wouldn't take so many casualties. Actually getting close enough for gladius work's the real problem, guess you'd need bow armed auxilaries for that.
>>9211961
Tests indicate that even at point blank range a bodkin arrow would only slightly dent plate armor. The reason the French got butt fucked was stupid tactics, which involved charging straight into a field that had been recently tilled and rained on. It slowed them down, their horses got shot and killed because the horses didn't have armor, and when the knights got knocked down the mud stuck and they couldn't stand back up. The archers had to use knives between the plates to actually kill them.

Ah, "Rome" ze movie, come out allready!

The longbow would probably get more effective in comparison to its performance against the French, but the fact that the Romans actually know how to move their troops would give them a victory here anyway. Remember, one of the primary reasons for the failure of the French at Crecy is that their nobles really, really wanted to catch some prisoners. Their general actually had a plan laid out that would've won them the fight, but it would've involved knights charging (gasp) PEASANTS, and would've involved shooting perfectly good ransoms with crossbowmen. Unacceptable to the chivalry, but a day's work for the Legion, which didn't take prisoners anyway.

Rome is in Italy.
Italy is made out of crossbows.
Therefore, these Romans, assuming they showed up within a thousand miles of Genoa, have enough crossbow-armed mercenaries to kill off the entire nobility by themselves.

>>9211983
No it couldn't. The French had built armor strong enough to resist even longbows.

The problem was their horses.

Personally, I think if the legions shields hold, then they've got it.

Of course, the legions have shit for armor and weapons compared the the English, so their own forces would trounce them.

The only huge weakness to the legions was a lot of ranged, mobile units, at which point they had to sit there and take it until they died. But even then, the later legions usually had some units of siege crossbow troops to counter it.

Well, let's see...

Crecy was won by terrain. The English entrenched themselves atop a hillock surrounded by swampland, preventing the French from using cavalry against them. Mercenary crossbowmen serving the French king were for some reason forbidden to use their pavises for protection against English arrows. As it rained recently, the strings on their weapons weren't at optimum and they had to get well inside longbow range to fire. They suffered losses, began to withdraw, and were slaughtered by French knights for cowardice. The French then began a charge on foot, being pummeled by arrows every step of the way (longbows couldn't actually pierce plate, but packed enough power to actually bruise the flesh underneath, or cause concussion in case of head shots). By the time the French reach the English lines, they were so exhausted and beaten that the Welshmen in the front ranks simply laid down their bows and butchered them in melee.

Now, Romans. Equipment-wise, Romans are fucked. They lack arrow-proof armor, heavy shields, and bows that could match English weapons. What they did have was tactics and long tadition of studying said tactics. Also siege weapons. Romans loved war machines. I would expect Romans to set up onagers and throw firebombs into English lines, using auxila cavalry and archers to prevent the English from withdrawing. Actual attack by testudo would be a suicide because of the terrain.

tl;dr Romans win using stand-off bombardment and besieging.

rolled 15 = 15

>>9212225
This. Any time Romans fought largely ranged foes, they got shot to shit.

See Juilius' pal Crassus and an entire Roman army marching off to die in Parthia.

>>9212272
In all fairness, Parthia took like six hours, and it was coming from all sides. This is a five minute jog, and then a fight. A fight with people who, whatever they might be, are definitely not going to be the equal of Legionaries in a straight scrap.

>>9212272
Well, the problem is when the foes are faster than the legions, but yea.

The legions tactics basically mobile siege warfare, when it comes down to it. They fought almost all their battles defensively, even when on the offense, and took any chance they could get to build natural defenses and make it a real siege. The legions weren't very mobile at all, not even on the battlefield.

Which wasn't nearly as much of a disadvantage as it sounds, but against something that can outrange them so greatly or against something that can keep them at range, they're mighty fucked.

>>9212245
I'd contest that the battle was won dually by terrain and incompetence on the other side. The French peeled off troops from their column as they came and threw them forward, instead of assembling the entire army and marching it in at once. That being said, in this kind of terrain I'm not really seeing the Roman legionary formations as being effective, too many people, too soft earth. There's also the question as to how useful those shields really are against longbows.

>>9212330
At the same time, the troops at Crecy had normal fighters, they just only needed the longbows.

Against a more implacable foe like the legions, they'd have rained as many arrows as possible on them(quite a few, attempting to maintain the formation up that hill would have required slow moving) and then let their own forces go to work once they got close.

>>9212372
No no, the Legions weren't mobile on the battlefield because they were quasi-heavy infantry, but on a logistical scale, there was never any infantry based army that moved as fast as the Romans. No baggage train to speak of, 10 hour marches, and they had the troops carry their forts with them.
Rome was never even that impressive in actual fighting, their skill was in marching, fortification and maneuvering on a strategic scale. Once they got down to tactics, they were kind of a one trick pony.

>>9212477
That's what I meant. We're mostly talking on the battlefield scale here.

But really, I doubt the legions would even march up that hill.

Caesar wasn't joking when he said that the Shovel had won more battles for the Legion than the Gladius.

Bearing this in mind, how would the fight actually go? Assuming the Romans know who they're fighting, they slap together a fort (standard practice) and drag those ballistae they've been lugging all this way up to the walls. Then, they start trading shots. Now, if I recall, the British actually had Cannons by this time, but by some coincidence, Roman forts were basically Earthworks with more raised dirt and fewer trenches, so the advantage still goes to the Bromans.
The key to winning anything from a Roman perspective is to force the enemy to break rank and come to you. That's not so hard when you bring a bunch of giant crossbows with you wherever you go. Odds are, however, that the British aren't stupid enough to try and sit through that, and keep running.
Question is, who can run longer? They didn't call 'em Marius's Mules for nothing.

>>9212607
Uh, the English would have been just as happy withdrawing. To win the french legions -must- engage them, they can't wait around to dig earthworks.

Also, those longbows can poke holes in people at amazing distance. King Edward wouldn't have just stood there while the Romans built fortifications. Advancing and harassing with longbow fire to force them to either leave range or commit to a real attack would have been simple.

>>9212687
The primary English advantage is that they have the high ground, and ample time to prepare. The Romans don't have a 50 mile baggage train, which means they get there at the same time, or no more than a few hours behind. There's no day of preparation, this time. Difference is, one side carries its fort with it, the other side had to cut down trees. If the English come *off* of that hill to try and harrass, they'll be hit by cavalry. There hasn't been enough time to establish defenses, and they're not on the hill anymore.

>>9212687
You've forgotten the situation. To win, the Legion has to keep them running. One side has actual logistics, the other side is in enemy territory, stealing food from peasants. Crecy happened because the English needed a decisive victory to keep from starving to death, so they set up shop, knowing that the French would attack out of hot-headedness and a desire for ransoms and prestige.
But the Romans aren't the French. Their business is killing, and they basically invented logistics. My bet is, they set up their fort a bit further south than the French did, with a vanguard daring the enemy to come down off of their hill, burn down Wadicourt and Crecy (the towns) themselves, and then wait for the English to starve to death, or come down and fight.

>>9213062
That isn't really fighting. Would they be scared by the longbows and the enemy's positioning?

>>9213089
The Romans were masters of fortification themselves. They know better than to attack somebody who has had time to dig themselves in. In this case, they have the advantage of time, and their enemy is made up of the textbook "shitty against fortresses" force, bowmen. The best move is, frankly, to build a fort on-location, but then to outflank and send men ahead of them, to burn down everything edible a hundred miles up the Maye, and then keep chasing them once they realize there's not going to be a fight.
That's how I would do it, anyway.

>>9213062

Not precisely. The English needed to get to unpillaged land so they could go back and pillage some more. The trouble was, there was a bigass French army who they didn't want to fight without preparing and getting in a good spot for arrow rape and being on the defensive, so they couldn't just go walking past them.

>>9212890

Relatedly, Roman cavalry was pretty shit.

>>9212687
If they take to the field, even to skirmish and harass the Romans while they're building their fort then they're wide open to being flanked and slaughtered by Roman cavalry auxilia. This is exactly what happened to the Gauls when they tried the SAME SHIT against Caesar.

The Romans can build a fort between a city they're besieging and an army besieging them. They don't fuck around.

You're all overcomplicating this. Have you actually seen what happened in the Battle of Crecy? Even given the ground and the fortifications and the longbows, Crecy was winnable, for the French. If the Crossbowmen had had pavises, the battle would've ended right there. But let's set that aside and look at the actual troops: If the French had simply assembled their entire army, instead of letting bickering nobles attack as soon as they got to the party, they'd have won hands down. Everyone knew it, even the English, that's why they worked so hard to piss the French off before the battle.

Now, take all of that, and replace them with an army that all gets there on time, forms up like sane human beings, and simply charges. They use their cavalry properly, they use their archers properly, they use their infantry properly. Casualties might be slightly higher than usual, but never in a million years would they be as high as they were for the French, because the French didn't charge with its whole army, it sent 2-3 units at a time in who got shot to pieces. Divide all of that fire up amongst 20,000 men at once, and they'll get there with light casualties at worst.

>>9213285
Depends where in Rome you got the cavalry. If this is post-Marian, then they've simply drawn auxiliaries from Gaul or Spain, and have the equivalent of Light cavalry. Ironically, that actually makes them BETTER suited to chase archers than knights.

>>9213355
Ah, we've got a Sulla in the audience. Form up and charge as one, better tactic than it sounds.
If it were Marius, his army would have been on that hill when the English got there.
If it were Caesar, the Romans would build a wall around the entire hill, and wait. (They actually did this to Vericingtorix.)
If it were Scipio, this army would actually be 20 guys with a bunch of noisemakers, and the real army would be burning down England.

Ah, those wacky Romans.

>>9213355
You're counting on having a competent Roman commander. Everyone who fought Hannibal before Scipio took command would like to have a word with you about competence.

>>9213532
There were some fine Roman commanders sent against Hannibal. It wasn't that they were bad it was that Hannibal was a fucking genius and nobody could beat him until they BECAME him. Scipio basically montaged learning all of Hannibals tricks in Spain before coming back to beat him.

>>9213343
Not only that, but they can build the fort basically overnight.

I wonder what it was like to be a Gaul during that fight.

You've got the guys surrounded, nowhere to go, even outnumbered. It looks like a sure victory.

Wake up the next morning, and you're looking at a fucking fortress with all the Romans hiding in it, and all of a sudden they've got the advantage.

30 posts, still reasonable, still interesting.

So this is where all the good posters of /tg/ have gone this afternoon.

>>9213584
Not only that, but you can hear the screams of your countrymen as the Romans sack the city you'd come to relieve from behind their fortifications.

>>9212245
Did they already have plate armour, or was it still Crusader-era-like puttin-some-bits-of-metal-on-top-of-the-mail?

>>9213714
At Crecy?

They had full plate.

In fact, they had the super full plate that was essentially immune to ranged weapons, the kind of stuff you could only really wear on horseback.

>>9213532
As someone already said, Hannibal was a goddamn genius. He expected the Romans to do the All Charge! thing, and then swept around them every time they did it. He also once hid an army in a ditch. Not like a few guys, no, like 6000 guys.
That's not going to happen here. Any of those 'incompetent' commanders would've eaten Crecy alive, the engagement is entirely straightforward. As long as they obey the dogma of "get into formation, THEN charge," victory is pretty much assured. There are no hot headed knights this time around, unless....
"Pullo! Back in formation!"

I love how the Romans tended to think outside the box.

We suck at naval warfare? No problem, let's build ships with boarding planks that allow us to essentially turn naval battles into regular ground battles, with heavily armed legionaires charging more or less unarmed sailors.

Not sure if we can win a pitched battle? Let's just turn it into a siege, with us being the defenders.

I'd put the lorica segmentatum up against the ramshackle plate being used at the time any day. It wasn't as tough, sure, but it was well made and flexible.

>>9213802

If you're going to lose the game, play a different game.

>>9213770
Not all of them, I expect. The infantry were still mostly men at arms, who had mail with steel bits rivited on. The army had a lot of knights though, most of whom had steel plate that was, essentially, arrow-proofed.
Most of the casualties actually came from men being trampled or finished off by the English after the battle ended.

>>9213787
LEGIONARY TITUS PULLO GET BACK IN FORMATION!

>>9213770
>In fact, they had the super full plate that was essentially immune to ranged weapons, the kind of stuff you could only really wear on horseback.

>Heavy-plate Hollywood myth

What the fuck man? What the fuck?

Even the finest gothic plate suit capable of catching crossbow bolts and bullets weighed less than the average mail suit.

Seriously, you dumb or what? Of all armours, plate is the strongest AND the lightest. Because it's just a thin layer of metal, that protects because its superior shape. Not because it's 1 meter thick.

>>9213828
Great, now I have to watch it again. Thanks /tg/, there goes my entire afternoon.

>>9213770
>In fact, they had the super full plate that was essentially immune to ranged weapons, the kind of stuff you could only really wear on horseback.

completely inaccurate there, I'm afraid.
the full plate harness of the middle of the 14th C was good, but not that good at defence - that really came in the mid 15th C.
mid 15th C harnesses, however, did not, in any way "nood to be used on horseback" - the average weight of such a harness is only 45lbs/22kg.
the earlier 1360's harnesses of the crecy era however were a lot heavier, with maille underneath the plate. still a lot less weight than the equivalent equipment loadout of a modern US Marine, though.

>>9213843
I'm sure what he meant was that the plate, with the gambeson beneath and the mail bits protecting the joints might've been... Cumbersome. And I expect it was, even if it wasn't as heavy. Goddamn but that stuff must rattle around a lot. That being said, I've seen people do cartwheels and shit in it. It can't be that bad.

>>9213869
nood to be.

need to be.

hrm, its one of those days where I cant type for shit.
(y'know, one that has a Y in it. )

>>9213787

Really. A.... tactical genius, you might say?

>>9213869
The retard is thinking about tournament armour. No one rode into battle on tournament armour.

That's just as retarded as saying that the US Army sends Mike Tyson along with the Rangers, because Mike Tyson can punch people really hard.

>>9211961
To be honest, they'd get their ass handed to them. Their armor wouldn't be able to protect them.

>>9213888
Sorry, I'd like to go on the record as saying that I would support sending Mike Tyson to punch Talliban fighters in Afghanistan.
That aside, yeah, that's kind of ridiculous.

>>9213814

Sure, but that stuff sounds so silly almost nobody except the romans used it - but it obviously worked.

Lets switch this up.

Roman Legions vs. Han Dynasty

They knew about eachother, they were rapidly expanding toward one another's territory. If it wasn't for the Parthians they'd probably have fought eachother a few times, but instead had distant political relations and a shitload of trade (glass for silk). The Chinese considered the empire of Da Qin (their word for the Romans) as their Western equivalent. So, if they slugged it out, who'd win? Is it just another case of Eastern tactics (lots of light cavalry and flanking maneuvers) vs. Western tactics (heavy infantry formations slugging it out till everyone on one side is dead) or does one side have a clear advantage?

>>9213843
Did I say you could only really use it on horseback because it was heavy?

No.

You could only really use it on horseback because it was far less flexible than traditional plate, designed specifically with fewer weak points and thicker armor so that it was immune to arrows. It also featured far stronger leg and foot protection to guard against attacks from the ground, extra protection that was useless and encumbering when on the ground.

Could you use it on the ground? Sure. Can you use a lance on the ground? Yes. Is either advisable? Not really.

>>9213927
Cho-ko-nu.

Do the Romans get those silly siege engines?

I mean. A couple repeater ballistas would certainly fuck a knight charge up.

Sure that armour can hold up against arrows and crossbolts, but a ballista bolt is something different.

>>9213873
>Cumbersome. And I expect it was, even if it wasn't as heavy. Goddamn but that stuff must rattle around a lot.

actually, the limb armour on most full plate harnesses (as I mentioned, 15th C, not 14th C crecy era) is actually more flexiable with a greater range of articulation than the human body inside it. weight-wise, only 22kg or so, with legs and arms being spread over the entire body.

pic shows how easy it is to move in armour.

and, you'd be surprised how little noise a *good* harness makes. badly made, yes, they clank and grind something shitty. well made, they're as smooth as silk and pretty quiet - just a little bit of a sliding of metal on metal.

>>9213932
Yeah I see. Sorry. Thought you were one of those dumbass D&D dorks with no concept of history.

"Hurrr, good armour = heavy!"

>>9213950
>and, you'd be surprised how little noise a *good* harness makes. badly made, yes, they clank and grind something shitty. well made, they're as smooth as silk and pretty quiet - just a little bit of a sliding of metal on metal.

Gothic Plate assassin character, FUCK YEAH!

>>9213950
*arms and legs weight spread over the body.

I _really_ cant type toda.y..

>>9212372
what? the legions weren't mobile? that's crap, mobility was one of their major advantages(*see the roman maniple). It's how they defeated phalanxes over and over again. One reason Hannibal rocked their shit so much was because he picked battlefields were the Romans couldn't use their mobility.

Yes, they were less mobile than calavry, but just about the most mobile heavy infantry ever.

As for Crecy, as mentioned before the Romans would not have marched across such a shit field and probably would have caught the English earlier. A Roman shield is not all that different from a pavises, so it would provide some protection from a long bow. If the Romans could close the gap they'd take the English archers and infantry in a strait fight.

BUT the wildcard. The English had heavily armored knights. If the English could confine the Romans on that field and if their infantry could hold on long enough the Knights could swing around and fuck the Romans in the butt.

Romans had issues against heavy cavalry.

Longbow wouldn't win it for the English, but their knights may.

>>9213888
I'm not thinking of tourney armor, because that wasn't used for combat.

No, in response to the longbow, the French kept making their plate armor thicker and stronger against bows in a vain attempt to weather the fire from the English troops so they could charge. This kind of plate isn't distinct enough to be it's own style of armor, but it was different in quite a few ways from the more traditional plate in terms of what it did. It was meant to be used from horseback, not while walking, because the French never expected to fight anywhere but from their horses.

>>9213905
We've covered that already. Remember, Archers aren't actually that incredible at inflicting casualties. Arrows miss, and most that hit aren't lethal even if they penetrate the armor, and it doesn't take long to charge the full distance of a Longbow's effective range.
Now, I'd give a liberal estimate of casualties from combined Longbow fire during such a charge at no more than 2-3 thousand (most wounded, rather than killed) Less, even, because the Romans segmented their forces well enough to avoid concentrated fire. Once the two groups actually meet, it's a matter of disciplined line infantry fighting less disciplined line infantry. Differences in equipment would be minimal, except that the Roman equipment is consistent, and they are by medieval standards a tremendously elite force, professionals against conscripts and low-level regulars.

>>9213938
cheiroballistra

>>9213932
Well, the lance comparison is bad on my part, on reflection.

The armor wasn't useless or anything on the ground, quite the opposite, but the way it was built by the french it was intended to be used specifically on horseback, and some of the things they did towards that made it worse for fighting on the ground.

>>9213938
Low strength, nothing that's going to work against mail and shield armed infantry. The Chinese repeating crossbow was intended to be used against spear and pike formations, who had not the benefit of shields. Its counter was, obviously, heavy infantry with shields... Which is what Romans were.
No, if you're going Han, their advantage is the heavy cavalry, but their disadvantage is famously poor logistic projection, and inferior infantry across the board.
It'd be interesting, given that such a conflict would have to take place in Persia, maybe in Bactrian territory.

>>9213927

I would expect it to be a 'West vs East' match up, so would the Greeks give up all those fucking crazy contraptions (i.e. Greek fire throwers) they had tucked away so they could kill moar chinks?

>>9213495

>>9213986
not quite that quiet. though a lot of the really high-class 16th C armours had velvet liners to the plates to stop the noise - just most of the lining strips have long-since crumbled to dust.

>>9213932
>designed specifically with fewer weak points and thicker armor so that it was immune to arrows. It also featured far stronger leg and foot protection to guard against attacks from the ground, extra protection that was useless and encumbering when on the ground.

not quite. the armour was rarely thicker - infact with the development of the plackart breastplates grew thinner, and it was the development of the fluted surface which aided in protection from arrow-strikes, not thickness.

and protection on the lower legs is very subjective. I can supply reference shots of 15th C harnesses with less protection than 14th C ones, and vice versa. it appears that it was very much a case of mobility vs protection, and many chose mobility. a case in point is the Matsch family harnesses of Churburg Castle, italy, which demonstrate the preference for the more exposed leg for more horseback control.
and the italian preference for maille on the feet, instead of the sabaton of french and german fashion, incedentally.

>>9214092
Are you kidding? They'd probably fight for the chinks if they let them. The greeks were always looking out for some great Eastern power to liberate them from under the Roman boot heel, just like at Mithridates. Of course, once the Athenians found out the Chinese thought they were smarter than them they'd immediately betray them and help the Romans, if only to feather their own nests again.

>>9213887
HANNIBAAAAAAAAAL!

>>9214149

The Greeks were ungrateful shites. They could've had it ALOT fucking worse. The Romans treated them fairly well, in comparison to the burrburrians they conquered.

>>9213355
>Have you actually seen what happened in the Battle of Crecy?
I envy people that can live for 700 years

>>9214092
Alright, I'll bite. Let's set aside the Greeks and just look at (Imperial) Rome and the Han.
Now I'm not going to lie, my opinion of the Han empire is low. The Qin dynasty knew their shit better, the Han eventually fucked up hard enough that they lost their country to rebels.
Let's say, though, that we assume roughly equal size (a legion versus an army of no more than 6000 men) and a central asian battlefield.
My first instinct is to just hand it to the Romans and walk away. They've got better heavy infantry, and both sides fielded cavalry in small proportions to their infantry, usually surrounding officers. However, there are a couple of turning points.
First, if anybody is going to challenge the Romans in siege engines, it's going to be the Chinese. I'm not saying its a sure thing, but they're the only ones out there with comparable tech. Also, there is a really dramatic difference in cavalry quality there, even if we assume the Romans have just brought along Armenian Auxiliaries or somesuch. The Chinese will have stronger horse, while the Romans will have superior foot. Archers won't make much of a difference on either side, because the Chinese are unaccustomed to heavy armor fielded on that scale, and the Romans think arrows are for fags.
...Yeah, Rome. Unless the Chinese general is noticeably superior, and launches a fire trap or some other manner of stratagem, Rome has my confidence. My real question is how the Han managed to get their army all the way out here.

>>9214187
The Romans loved Greece and all of the neat shit that came out of there, and yeah they gave them a lot more leeway than they did say the Gauls or even an equivalent culture like the Egyptians. But don't think Rome was too soft; after Greece sided with Mithridates, Sulla whooped that ass and then had Athens sacked just to teach the fucks a lesson.

>>9214033
May I also just point out that in the context of Crecy, your statements are absolute speculation. there are virtually no surviving 14th C leg armours surviving - the sole notable exception to that being the chartres cathedral boy's armour peices, consisting of one leg, and a sabaton, dated to 1390.
there are no complete harnesses of any nationality surviving from the 14th C.

this thread is awsome and you should all feel awsome.

>>9213584
>Wake up the next morning, and you're looking at a fucking fortress with all the Romans hiding in it, and all of a sudden they've got the advantage.
Biggest trollface ever.

>>9214218
LUCIUS SULLA ALL UP IN THIS BITCH.
One of the few Romans who might actually pass as a "good guy."

>>9214218

Yeah, Greece was the rebellious teen of its day (Despite it being older than Rome). Taking everything for granted...

>>9214218

Cato the Elder was here. All true Romans rightly abhor Greek decadence.

Greece can suck a dick.

>>9214215
Dude, the Chinese sent fleets of thousands of ships out into the ocean just to see what was out there and made it as far as East Africa and (presumably) America. I don't put it past them for one minute to march an army that far if they thought it was worth the trouble. They'd build a whole bridge and tunnel network into Turkey if they had to.

>>9214260

'HURRUS HURRUS LOLUS IUS TROLLUS YOU-US'

>>9214260
Problem, Celts?

>>9214230
Well, of course, but still, it's quite logical.

After all, plenty of other, later styles of plate armor show the kind of advancements I've talked about, and short of assuming the advancements came afterward(which is possible, but I figure unlikely, even by Crecy the French must have been looking at how to make themselves arrow proof) there's no real reason to believe they weren't being used.

>>9214278
Also, at that point the Spartans were basically cosplaying to amuse Roman tourists.
Oh yes. The Romans turned Sparta into a theme park. Can you hear that? It's Lycurgus spinning in his grave.

>>9214260
stand up on a tower and eat your ration and yell at the starving british army "OH GOD THIS IS SO GOOD! do you guys want some? come on over"

>>9214075
>>9214092
There is some (sketchy) evidence of the Han going up against the Bactrian Greeks a few times. What limited info we have from the Chinese sources says it was a real tough fight.

>>9214296
Eh, that was post Mongol China you're talking about. We're talking about Han China.

Although, I think you're all overlooking something more awesome.

Romans in the mess of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Cao Cao with mercenary Germans? Yes please.

>>9214296
Han dynasty =/= Ming dynasty.

the Ming were 1400 years later and the most powerful dynasty in Chinese history. Using them as a way to judge what/how the Han would do is like using late 19th century Germany to judge Charlemange's empire.

>>9214306

>spinning in his grave

That's quite a mental image.

>>9214345
Imagine the battle of Chi Bi, except with Romans on all of those boats, given Pang Tong the coldest look as he tries to explain to them that they need to chain their tinderbox boats together to keep from getting seasick.

>>9214187
tax farmers were bad, very bad. I'd much rather be under a reasonable Celtic thane than a greedy Roman governor.

however if the Roman governor was quality there's no place I'd rather be.

>>9214314

Gaul =/= Briton/Pict/Gael

>>9214423

Celts= Briton/Pict/Gael/Gaul

>>9214218
Well Athens did killed every last Italian man, woman, and child in Attica when they joint Mithirades. Bad idea.

>>9214419
"What the fuck is he saying?"
"Fuck if I know. Kill him if he touches anything, I'm going to go bugger that Cao Pi kid again."

>>9214419
"Most honored Majesty, the barbarian is saying this idea is bad and you should feel bad."

"Tell him when I want to know what someone who reeks of leather and olives thinks I'll confide in a grocer."

>>9214465
What could possibly possess someone to do that?
"HEY! HEY ROME! I'M BETRAYING YOU AND KILLING YOUR PEOPLE LOLOLOLOLOL, WHAT'RE YOU GUNNA DO?"
Oh wowwie gee, what are the people famous for crucifying rebels going to do someone who actually fucks with them?

Come on guys, if my ragtag army of pro-wrestlers can beat the romans' asses for two years how bad can they be?

Titus Pullo vs Lord Guan....epic battle or epic bro fist?

>>9214303
erm... no.

you're making "logical" assumptions that are'nt actually borne out by the archeological record, and regarding arms and armour development over the course of a century.

its the equivalent of assuming WW1 soldiers had dragonskin armour and M16s, because logically, soldiers in 2000 had such equipment.

the development of full plate from 1320-1500 is as distinct and repid a developmental curve as anything which has taken place in the last century - to the extent that I can generally identify the date of a harness to within a decade either way, just by handling the assorted parts.
Thomas Beauchamp's effigy of 1369 is a reference for the absolute cutting edge of tech for crecy, and its still far behind the 15th C stuff that did afford better defence.

>>9214492
FIVE MINUTES LATER
(clinging to floating barrels as the sky blazes with the remnants of the fleet)

"Your honored majesty, the barbarian wishes to relay to you that-"

"I KNOW."

>>9214451

The Britons and the Gauls were very different people, culturally. The Picts were just mountain dwelling psychos, and the Gaels were fighting the Fomorians, but that's another story, for another post.

>>9214538
Guan Yu would probably get along better with Vorenus, both being super serious nationalist types. Pullo and Zhang Fei, though. Oh lordie, there won't be a full bottle or a virgin daughter left in the city.

>>9214548
and for fuck's sake, how many fucking typos am I doing to make today?

I cant type for shit tonight.

Romance of the Three Kingdoms Lu Bu would've gotten his ass kicked by Pullo's army.

Why can't Deadliest Warrior be like this thread? This is the most rational, civil, cut & thrust debating and speculation I've seen in months.

>>9214571
you sir, make a damn good point. we'd have a complete League of Win no matter what the outcome.

>>9214571
Well that depends on who the Romans would side with.

Each of the armies had generals that Vorenus and Pullo would bro with, come to think of it...

>>9214564
all Iberians anyways.

>>9214597
That's a bit... Bold. Historical Pullo was just some Centurion in Caesar's army, we don't actually know how hard core he was or wasn't.
That being said, the army he was in, the 13th legion and its god-tier commander Caesar, would've swallowed Lu Bu's soul whole. The man was a great warrior, but not a phenomenal commander. His mistakes at Xia Pi were elementary, and eventually his own men had to tie him up and throw his weapon over the walls because he was going to get them all killed.

>>9214602

Deadliest Warrior is a fucking farce.

>>9214552

....

DO YOU WRITE FOR ASTERIX COMICS?

BE TRUTHFUL

>>9214467
>>9214492
>>9214552
(spurt cough) LOL!

you owe me a new keyboard anon.

>>9214651
I dunno, the Spetsnaz vs. Green Berets was pretty good, in that it showed the Russkies are soulless killing machines and we don't want their special forces up in our shit.

>>9214626
I can't rightly see Romans siding with Shu, they were too nice. Wei would probably be suspicious of them, and while Wu would be the most likely to accept them out of hand, how would they ever come into contact with Wu?
No, my bet is Wei, simply because they had LouYang, and thus the silk road.

>>9214648
It's worth noting though that Post-Yellow Turban China was a COMPLETE clusterfuck. A complete societal collapse on the scale of Africa had just occurred. The soldiers they had in their armies were probably just scared out of their minds farms pulled out of the fields.

That's why all of a sudden as the story goes on the badasses disappear; one man couldn't make the difference any more as armies and soldiers actually got organized, armed, and trained as time went on.

>>9214661
Do they still make those? I thought the guy died.
...Er, no. No I do not. God I loved those when I was younger, though.

>>9214679
Wasn't it the reign of Marcus Aurelius around that time? Who'd he have supported? He was a pretty pragmatic fucker.

>>9214306
Oh Rome, you so bad ass

>>9214679

I see the Romans stealing the shirts off of their backs when they were weakest, because the Romans were dicks like that.

>>9214306
>Oh yes. The Romans turned Sparta into a theme park

>>9214751
>>9214770
You'll notice that as soon as Rome fell, Europe flipped out and started killing each other.
This is because without the fear of Rome there to come and burn your shit down every day, western civilization had no ground to stand on. They had to INVENT an enemy as scary as the Romans before they could start going in the same direction again.

>>9214648
just some centurion? The fact that Caesar writes about him demonstrates his total badassedness. Plus high ranking centurions, which we can assume Pullo would have become had he lived, were promoted into the Roman nobility (equites) and held a rank equivilant to a modern full bird colonel. A particularly awesome Centurion could even become a general or senator if the Fortune allowed (that wonderful bitch). They were hardly slouches.

>>9214648
There aren't many armies that can beat Caesar's 13th Legion.

>>9214833
That's a pretty good point, actually. Not only was he a centurion, he was a centurion who worked for CAESAR, in CAESAR's BEST LEGION, the hyper-meritocratic XIIIth. The man must've been a rock star when he came home.

>>9214730
Actually, Septimius Severus. He cared more for Britain, though it should be noted he campaigned successfully against the Parthians.

I think it's safe to say though, that none of the Roman Emperors would dream of trying to play Emperor Maker on the far side of the world just because China was in the midst of a civil war.

Still a fun idea to imagine though, a Roman legion running around with the great heroes in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms...

>>9214833
You have been granted entrance into the Evocati.

>>9214860
Ten bucks says Caligula would've tried it.

>Oh yes. The Romans turned Sparta into a theme park
lol. and mighty Romans legions are now the Italian Army.

>>9214879
Yeah, because his 'invasion' of Briton went so well.

>>9214888
HEY. The Mighty Romans are now the Vatican. There's a world of difference, sir! The Vatican doesn't even have an army, just some Swiss guys they hire out of form.

>>9214901
I never said it was a good idea, but if anyone was going to jump on the "Hey guys, let's walk 50,000 miles to fight an unwinnable war with one of our trading partners!" ship, it'd have been Little-Boots.

>>9214901
Worst. Triumph. Ever.

>>9214906
Are the Swiss guard even armed with modern weapons?

>>9214920
...True.

Pity that none of the crazy Emperors were alive around this time. Could make a pretty amusing alt-hist story.

>>9214945
Tiberius was crazy AND a decent general. He'd have made the trip, if only because it put him as far from Rome as humanly possible.

You want bullshit? Look up the Battle of Alesia.
Ok, so Ceasar, right? He's got this Gaul town besieged. He builds a fucking wall around the ENTIRE thing, with 60,000 legionaries against the 80,000 in the town. Then, 100,000 gauls show up OUTSIDE of the wall, to try and relieve the Gauls. Well, Caesar's not going to be outdone so easily.
So, he builds a second wall around his first wall. He is now, with 60,000 men, holding off 180,000 men who are attacking from both sides of his wall, at night, from all directions.
He wins, and loses something like 20% of his army. Spoilers: He fucking wins.

>>9214999
Damn. Drop one of those wins.

>>9214859
not to nerd it up too much, but the info we have says the real Pullo was in the 10th legion.

but yeah, he would have been a rock-star.

Rome did a shit job (I assume for dramatic sake) of showing how retired centurions/distiguished veterans lives. Pullo/Vorenus would have been rich and famous men after the Gallic war, that much more so if they had fought in the civil war.

Many vets would settle in the provinces and become that regions nobility. The real Pullo probably settled in Narbo or Milan sat on the city counsel, became a prominent business man, had a big house, tilled his fields and fucks his slaves.

>>9214999
>He wins, and loses something like 20% of his army.
>Spoilers: He fucking wins.
Hurr.

>>9214999
...Okay, I really have to read Caesar's diaries.

Did they have to have a separate chariot for his balls, or did they just give that job over to the adoring crowds that followed him?

>>9214986
Oh Tiberius, you pedophiliac bastard. Exceptional by dint of hating day to day politics.

>>9214999
THAT IS NOT HOW WAR WORKS. God dammit Keysar!

>>9214999
see
>>9213343

>>9215057
Oh my, someone already covered that.
Well, my mistake. Sorry about the two wins, by the way, I was torn.

>>9214999
so he built two walls here.
one facing the town.
one facing the invading army.
and a fuckton of bewilderd romans saying "this is actually fucking working?"

>>9215016
Well, Pullo would have. If Vorenus sided with Antony as he did in the show he'd be lucky to escape with his life and property if agents of the Augustus didn't take both from him, quickly.

>>9215070
To put things in perspective, Caesar got his ass handed to him right after that by the same Gauls at Gergovia.

>>9214940
Yeah. They have their ceremonial Swiss pikemen outfits and shit, but they have a bunch of SIG550s if I recall. They are used as a real bodyguard force.

>>9215265
Does the Pope really need bodyguards? I mean, come on, it's not like the Lutherans are out to get him anymore.

..or are they?

>>9215265
It would be awesome if they still carried the pikes and wore their breastplates while they used them.
Stupid, but awesome.

>>9215285
Vengeful Ex-Choirboys

>>9215295
Now you know why the Adeptus Custodus looks the way they look.

And why they have gun-pikes.

>>9215285
>Does the Pope need bodyguards?

So long as HEATHENS and HERETICS exist, yes

>>9215405
Traitor Choirboys who have turned their Father and have turned to Heresy

>>9215428
you mean choirboys who resent the fact they were fiddled with as children?

>>9215265

Yep, I went to the vatican once and saw the swiss dudes guarding the place. They were most definitely a contemporary armed force.

Also they keep mummified popes (or was it saints?) in the vatican on display. I reckon they keep them in a public space so that the mummies can't risk waking up without alerting humanity to the undead threat.

>>9211961
Speaking of the awesomeness of the penii that is Rome the TV series, anyone have working MU links to Season Two dvd rips?

>>9215423
You get +1 piety for destroying a heathen though. Definitively worth it.

>>9215500

Fucking Constantinople. It was a bitch to take before the Mongols came, and it was a bitch to keep after the Mongols started knocking.

When was the last attempt at Pope's life? Or anyone important in the Church, for the matter. I thought people mostly ignore them this days, since their lost the real political power they had back in the day.

>>9215500

Man I haven't played the base game in so long. All mods all the time

>>9215520
Strategy that I've found that works very well is a few siege engines, lot of bowmen, and some heavy infantry. Set up into 3 big armies. 2 attack from the front and one attacks from the rear. Make sure to block off any escape routes on the world map with some light cavalry unit. This allows you to kill the mongols with minimal casualties.

Course, in my current game, my crusading army captured jerusalem right in time for the mongol invasion. After that the army spend the next 30 or so turns sacking egyptian and then moor cities right until they reached spain. Leaving the cities unguarded and angry so that they would rebel just in time for the mongols to be forced to deal with a bunch of angry rebels.

Scorched earth for the win.

>>9215500
even harder in Stainless Steel

fucking venetians...

>>9215606
The Church lost a lot of political power, but the Church adapts.

They still have a lot of power, thanks to charity work and such.

>>9215651

All I did was play Templars or Jerusalem.

Egypt was simple enought, but then it became a big pissing match against the Turks and Khwarezmians.

And then oh god mongols.

Hmm. Well, the English would still have the benefit of being largely capable of picking their fight. Still, what it comes down to is "would the enemy be as stupid as the french?"

I'd say the English could have beaten even a Napoleonian army if it were given the same baggage of incompetence.

>>9215675
you know it brother...

Same with playing the Cumans when the fucking Timurids came along and your main army was in Riga :(

>>9215606
1995, al-qaeda with a suicide bomber in the philippines. Though the 1981 sniper in turkey was the most "successful" attempt in recent history, shot john paul 4 times, he lived though. And pardoned his attacker.

>>9215700
>>9215651
I never got around to trying Stainless Steel. Vanilla didn't give enough of a challenge to keep interest that long. Is it any good?

I personally loved to play the Danes. Economical problems? Build a blob of vikings and go shopping across central Europe. AKA. Travel through Europe by capturing one province at a time, sacking and plundering everything before moving on to the next. When you reach the mediterranean, hire a mercenary fleet and sail home with 20,000 florins and a triple excommunication.

>>9215791
Danefag here too

I got bored playing vanilla, so I started over.
Spent some time building up a viking raiding force and went on a field trip to Rome.

I spent everything hiring mercs, including swiss pikemen (fukkin win). Used them as meat shields for when I got caught, wound up at the gates of rome with my loyal danes mostly intact.
Sacked Rome, destroyed the papal states, destroyed every building in the city and left on a merc boat as the city fell to riots.

It was glorious.
Pope says: EXCOMMUNICATED
Danes say: AXE TO FACE.

Sure, the Romans have very professional soldiers, but then, those soldiers have short, pissant swords. The English will have all kinds of fun toys, all of which are much more reliable at inflicting trauma to armored enemies. And the stupidly large hails of arrows probably won't do any favors for the shields they have. I generally expect that any of the elite English infantry will cause serious problems, due to being heavily armed, and armored. The Knights will CLOBBER the Roman Cavalry too. Even if it's relatively good cavalry, they still don't have the mass or weapons to really hurt heavily armed and armored knights. (To say nothing of maybe not even having Stirrups.)

>>9215791
yes its like TW2 x 4

you can play lithuania and the teutonics, mongols

expanded map
better map animations
new units

its awsome

I'm playing medieval 2: total war right now as the english, first thing I did was capture the rest of the island against the scots. Then went to war with the french on the mainland. There's a lot to be said about bringing a huge force of longbowmen supported by a few spearmen and knights.

My primary units though? Assassins and spies. I don't attack a city until it's been thoroughly worked over by several spies and assassins. Too bad this makes my king insanely evil for some reason. Even though it minimizes casualties on both sides.

My king is now named George the Dread Lord, he was George the Honorable when he took the throne.

>>9215875
>Elite English Infantry
There's your problem. This was, what, mid 1300s? There were no elite English infantry, just conscripts. The Romans used this pissant short swords because they worked better than the long ones in synergy with the shield. I'd give you the knights thing, but there weren't a lot of knights at Crecy.

>>9215875
I'd be wary when comparing Imperial era infantry to Fuedal men at arms. 'Professional' meant a whole different thing back in Rome than it did during the 100 years war. Those Legionaries were more organized and more disciplined than anything seen again until the renaissance. The only medieval force I can think of off the top of my head that might have been equal to them in actual battle might've been some flavor of pikemen, but then we'd run into the same issue the greeks did, the Pila, and the mobility of the Roman Maniple.

/tg/ - Alternate History

>>9217220
I would personally say that the professionalism of the Legions was not seen in Europe until the Napoleonic Era. The Romans were masters of logistics and organization.

>>9217465
True that. My cousin is a history major and he lent me some books that describe how the romans organized their legion's camps.

They surely knew what the fuck they were doing.