Roman legion at the battle of hastings - how would they fare ?

no but i mean tactically in the battle. didnt wiliam start shitposting and saxons went into rage and they lost?

>under command of Caesar
win, gods on his side

>Their weapons and armor are considerably inferior.
No.
Roman arms were good quality, reliable. It isn't an rpg, they don't have -10 damage

>No, the Romans of Caesar's day never fought an infantry core force with an almost equally numerous heavy cavalry support force leavened with archers who had bows more in advance than existed in the Roman world.
Caesar defeated all kinds of combined arms, particularly in Africa.

>Purely hypothetical question: who is smarter? caesar fag. vs. saxonfag.

Lets see how they fare.

Caesar is commanding? Give him a few more legions.

Whoops namefagged myself

No. The Normans started to retreat, either actually or as a feint, the English gave chase, leaving their advantageous position, the Normans regrouped and slaughtered them.

if it was a feint, then that counts as shitposting. english shouldn't have run.

get with the program normanfag

A military historian--I think it was A.J.P. Taylor--has observed that military science had deteriorated so much by the early Middle Ages that the army of Caesar or Alexander could have conquered all of Europe in a good summer. The original hypothetical, Caesar with one legion, would probably come down to the quality of his cavalry auxiliaries. The revised question, Caesar with three legions, is easy. The Romans superior organization, equipment, and tactics would have crushed either Normans or Saxons.

Saxons suck ass

>a pike phalanx
>conquering medieval Europe
weeeew

Not only is the terrain terrible for a pike phalanx (one of the reasons the Romans went with the maniple system) but they'd be so easily flanked that it would be a total joke. Medieval cavalry would smash the shit out of any ancient cavalry force, even the companions. After that, they'd simply wheel around and fuck the phalanx from behind like the Romans did to the Macedonians, only this time with medieval heavy cavalry with lances, so that hammer is going to be extremely effective.
Furthermore, the medieval armies would outrange the ancient ones, so they'd have a clear advantage in missiles and cavalry. Whatever perceived invincibility of the Roman infantry you may have, they wouldn't be good enough to deal with those disadvantages.

this guy seems like he knows what he talk about.

you are a retard

he's wrong though. medieval armies were flat out better, warfare did not suddenly get worse when the Romans left, even they abandoned their old system before the end. The byzantines literally created mounted cataphractari legions to replace the infantry legions, it's clear that cavalry came to dominate the battlefield by this time.

Well they're much better at marching than the huscarls, that's an advantage considering the lead up to the battle.

Maybe they even get around to fortifying their position with the time they save.

Legion may stand a chance taking the defense, depending on the era they're taken from. Might even give them odds if Caesar is in charge.

>The Normans started to retreat

It was the Bretons on the left that pulled back and got the Anglos chasing them.

unlikely, the Romans got btfo by the same barbarian tribes that later founded the early medieval states.

what about byzantines vs romans and normans vs byzantines? did normans and byzantines ever fight?

the byzantines literally used huscarls as the emperor's personal bodyguard. If roman infantry was so great, then why did the emperor have "barbaric" huscarls defending them?

Not him, but the main reason was political. Rome, both East and West, had a long history of the emperor's bodyguard unit turning on him and causing trouble. A gang of barbarians with no patrons or support within the empire were more politically stable and thus safer; if the Emperor went down, they were going with him, and thus could be trusted.

Sure, but at the same time they specifically chose huscarls for that purpose for a reason, because they were damn good infantry, certainly equal or better than anything the byzantines had at that point, especially considering they were all about the cataphractari.

really? were the byzantines not capable of training better infantry?

I think it's safe to say that a society that puts their entire military prowess into developing the best infantry they can is going to have better infantry than a society that focuses on heavily armored cavalry and trains infantry as an afterthought to just hold the line so the cataphractari can wheel around the flank and get all the glory.

Special snowflake troops are always a meme military-wise, if 2 large groups of people train their entire lives for a specific type of combat they are generally going to be equally good. Although Nordic dudes are bigger and better looking than the rest, the first being a combat advantage, the latter being something to show off with.

not even just for a bodyguard? richest empire on earth?

>Sure, but at the same time they specifically chose huscarls for that purpose for a reason

Yes, that reason being they were politically reliable and could be counted on not to depose the Emperor when an influential count or whatever wanted to stage a coup.

For god's sake, they're a bodyguard unit, not a regular line infantry unit: If the Emperor was taking the field, he'd almost certainly be with the horsemen anyway.

>did normans and byzantines ever fight?

Well the Kingdom of Sicily was founded by Normans. Did they fight with Byzantines?

you're ignoring the money, never ignore the money. Nords put their money into huscarls. The byzantines put their money into cataphractarii. The Nordic societies glorified hand to hand infantry combat because they were bigass hairy neanderthal- looking motherfuckers, roman armies always compensated for their manlets by sticking to formations, even cataphractarii were heavily drilled and always stuck in tight, packed formations and never wanted to fight individually against faster, more maneuverable cavalry. The Romans always got beat up by those big burly northern men, that's why they chose them as bodyguards, because they were not people you wanted to fight unless you were in a tight, comfy formation and hiding behind a big shield, not something an assassin can rely on.

To summarize, societies get good at where they put their money, because whatever they take pride in is going to attract the best warriors. The best byzantine fighters joined the cataphractarii, and the best Nordic fighters joined the huscalrs. it's a simple matter of what kind of person was holding the equipment. For the byzantines, they put their best on horses. The nords kept their best on foot, so that's the main reason the nords would certainly have an advantage, because at that point it's the best of the nords going up against the average joes from the byzantine empire.

They were physically intimidating, that's a reason you can't ignore. Otherwise they would have grabbed literally anyone else from anywhere else but they specifically chose huscarls for that purpose because they were big, powerful, intimidating men that towered over latins and greeks

Are you retarded?

>you're ignoring the money, never ignore the money.

If we go by money, the Byzantines win since yes, they had a lot more to throw around, evne for the comparatively less important infantry.

> Nords put their money into huscarls.

Not really, no. The word you're looking for is 'focus'. And simply because one group focuses on something, doesn't mean they'd do it well. Byzantine infantry would easily defeat an equal number of Aztec infantry, despite the Aztecs having even more of an infantry focus than the Nords, they didn't even have horses to compete with them!

>The Romans always got beat up by those big burly northern men,

The Cimbri and the Teutones and all the northern barbarians up until about the 4th-5th century that the Romans kicked the crap out of would beg to differ. It's interesting to note that the Germans only started becoming a problem after Rome started falling apart from the inside.

>that's why they chose them as bodyguards,

No, the reason they chose them as bodyguards (which, by the way, has very little to do with how infantry would perform on a field of battle) is because since they were not Roman, and not involved in the Roman court life, they were far more dependent on the Emperor than Roman bodyguards would be, and thus more trustworthy.

Please kill yourself.

People really underestimate the capabilities of Medieval armies. Hastings was fought around a millenium after the time of Caesar, to think military technology and tactics havnen't significantly changed over that long a period of time isn't just naive, it's stupid.

William's cavalry, for example, would have probably decimated whatever it came across. Knights reigned supreme during that time and I doubt the Romans of Caesar's time ever encountered heavy cavalry utilizing stirrups and long lances. Not to mention that the bows he has would've been remarkably superior to anything in classical Europe.

>They were physically intimidating, that's a reason you can't ignore.

Sure I can.

>Otherwise they would have grabbed literally anyone else from anywhere else

What on earth makes you think that? They need to be somewhere from far away, somewhere where ordinary politics doesn't touch them; otherwise, they're not disinterested parties, they'll favor people who have friendly policies towards their homeland. The Nords were very far away from Byzantium, the ERE never had an interest in scandinavia, and they hired themselves out as mercenaries. |

>they specifically chose huscarls for that purpose because they were big, powerful, intimidating men that towered over latins and greeks

They did not "specifically" choose Huscarls. The Varangian guard, whom I'm assuming you're referring to, wasn't even primarily Nordic after the 11th century, which is what, 2/3s of their existence. Post Hastings a lot of them were Anglo-Saxons, and other Germans as well.

Not to mention that byzantine writers constantly stress their loyalty, not their size.

oh cool let's just start throwing around insults when someone dares to disagree with you.

>If we go by money, the Byzantines win since yes, they had a lot more to throw around, even for the comparatively less important infantry.

But nobody that was anybody wanted to be infantry. All the glory-seekers joined the cataphractarii, it's the same reason you don't see charismatic leaders of men washing dishes or mopping floors, because they're all in positions where they can utilize their charisma, that's how being a human being works, but clearly you think that a society's pride has no effect on it's prowess in certain fields, so I don't even know where to start with logic that dumb.

>
Not really, no. The word you're looking for is 'focus'. And simply because one group focuses on something, doesn't mean they'd do it well. Byzantine infantry would easily defeat an equal number of Aztec infantry, despite the Aztecs having even more of an infantry focus than the Nords, they didn't even have horses to compete with them!

What a bullshit analogy, you're really going to compare the Nords to the fucking american natives, who didn't have horses or any worthwhile animals to domesticate whatsoever and were in no way comparable to any european infantry, let alone romans or nords?

>The Cimbri and the Teutones and all the northern barbarians up until about the 4th-5th century that the Romans kicked the crap out of would beg to differ. It's interesting to note that the Germans only started becoming a problem after Rome started falling apart from the inside.

I wonder why the Rhine river was Rome's historical border for the majority of it's history? Clearly they could have conquered the germans any time because they were so dominant against them, your not cherrypicking to suit your argument or anything.

>they were not Roman

This narrows down the emperors choice to literally ANYONE OTHER THAN BYZANTINES, and he chose huscarls. Think. Retard.

>Anglo-Saxons, and other Germans as well.

All of which would intimidate greek and latin men, because all of these groups were bigger on average than greeks/latins.

This user is right. Read more you fucking moron.

>But nobody that was anybody wanted to be infantry. All the glory-seekers joined the cataphractarii, it's the same reason you don't see charismatic leaders of men washing dishes or mopping floors, because they're all in positions where they can utilize their charisma, that's how being a human being works, but clearly you think that a society's pride has no effect on it's prowess in certain fields, so I don't even know where to start with logic that dumb.

No, that's not what I think, I'm thinking that discipline and training can make competent infantry even when said infantry isn't glamorous, a point that you seem to miss, and certainly don't say, since you said that we should "follow the money".

Well, by following the money, we see that the Byzantines put more money into their infantry than the Nords did theirs, so the Byzantines clearly win, which is contrary to your point.

>What a bullshit analogy, you're really going to compare the Nords to the fucking american natives, who didn't have horses or any worthwhile animals to domesticate whatsoever and were in no way comparable to any european infantry, let alone romans or nords?

Why not? You're the one saying it boils down to societal focus, and not general martial traditions, training methods, organizational ability, logistics, population counts, ability to turn out decent equipment, etc.

The Aztecs had a greater infantry focus than the Nordic peoples. Therefore, by your logic, the Aztecs were better infantrymen. This is clearly wrong; which should indicate to you that societal focus isn't even the biggest factor at work here.

>I wonder why the Rhine river was Rome's historical border for the majority of it's history? Clearly they could have conquered the germans any time because they were so dominant against them, your not cherrypicking to suit your argument or anything.

You do know that they occupied most of Germanany for the reign of Tiberius, yes? That they pulled out because it cost more to administrate than it was pulling in? Not because they had any particular trouble defeating the natives in battle?

>This narrows down the emperors choice to literally ANYONE OTHER THAN BYZANTINES, and he chose huscarls. Think. Retard.

Except for 2/3 of the lifetime of the Varangian guard, let alone other bodyguard units. Then there's of course all the areas that are inimical to the Byzantines, or are politically affected by them, and are yet willing to make the trip all the way to Byzantium and sell their swords. It narrows the list further than you might think.

And yet, Byzantine writers barely mention their size, focusing more on their ferocity, and yet more on their loyalty. I wonder which they considered more important.

inb4wikipedia

>The Varangian Guard was only used in battle during critical moments, or where the battle was most fierce.[21] Contemporary Byzantine chroniclers note with a mix of terror and fascination that the "Scandinavians were frightening both in appearance and in equipment, they attacked with reckless rage and neither cared about losing blood nor their wounds".

This. Equestrian classes were more often equestirian because they had the money for good horses. Even the cavalry-centric Persians had mountains of wealth/respect to dole out to Sughdians/Daylami infantry because they were fucking awesome at being infantry.

Where does that say the reason they were selected is because LAWL HUEG?

literally the first prerequisite for being a bodyguard in any society is to be a big, intimidating motherfucker. This is the same anywhere you go, even north koreans choose the tallest people they can find to stand at the border. Bodyguards were always big people, and part of the reason they chose germans/nords/saxons to be their bodyguards is because they were big people.

>literally the first prerequisite for being a bodyguard in any society is to be a big, intimidating motherfucker. This is the same anywhere you go, even north koreans choose the tallest people they can find to stand at the border. Bodyguards were always big people, and part of the reason they chose germans/nords/saxons to be their bodyguards is because they were big people.

So, no, you don't actually have a source supporting this.

Here, have something modern, where it's easier to measure heights. Here's a picture of Ban-Ki-Moon's bodyguard holding a gun back in 2011

i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/21/article-0-0B4579F200000578-82_634x411.jpg

Ban Ki Moon is about 5'10. His bodyguard seems to be about the same height, and showing a bit of paunch. Surely, he was picked for his pure intimidation factor.

Here's a bunch of secret servicemen with Hillary Clinton, who is 5'4

c10.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/styles/original_image_with_cropping/public/uploaded/hillary-clinton-abusive-to-secret-service.jpg?itok=qJiVgGR3

Only one of them is a full head taller, which would make him about 6 feet tall should his head be more or less the average size. They're clearly not giants. The rest of them are shorter.

Here's Walter Thompson on the right in this picture, in the pinstripe suit; Winston Churchill's primary bodyguard.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_H._Thompson#/media/File:Winston_Churchill_As_Prime_Minister_1940-45_H10688.jpg

Notice how he towers over everyone. Oh wait, he doesn't.

Please stop talking out of your ass.

>Sure I can.
Tell that to any fusilier force dealing with grenadiers, ever.
You know what he meant, retard. Tallest soldiers ALWAYS stand in the front of the line in order to look aesthetic and more intimidating. Why do you think grenadiers were picked for their height? Bigger is objectively more intimidating than manlet faggots, eg. you.

businessinsider.com/what-is-rokos-basilisk-2014-8
blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=7263

>Civil War with Pompey
>It becomes a dick measuring contest on who builds the better fortress

If Lego had been around in 1st century BC the Republic would still be around.

you are
>implying combat discipline is compensation for being a manlet
>implying the Norse did not know to fight in tight formation while the shield wall was all about discipline
>implying the Byzantine Emperor couldn't just get one generation of Varangians and get them to train the biggest dudes he could find in the empire

It's you who are ignoring that the Emperor had money. So much money, in fact, that he could make what the fuck ever he wanted out of his own dudes

not him but...
>>implying combat discipline is compensation for being a manlet
except it is, especially in the modern era where marksmanship is what makes for a truly lethal soldier, not how tall he is or how much he lifts.

And in Caesar's commentaries on the Gallic War he noted that his men were initially fearful of the taller, burlier Gauls, but over the course of the campaign gradually grew dismissive of them, because the Roman's style of getting up close and personal with a short sword and a tower shields made the Gaul's additional reach a liability in the cramped, claustrophobic conditions of the melee

he's got some serious manlet rage going

It's not a compensation for being a manlet, it's the basis of any noteworthy military action. You might have misunderstood what I meant. I wasn't implying that being big is something you can't make up for by being disciplined, what I said was that discipline is something fighting forces need regardless of size and not just an attempt to compensate for being small.

A legion would easily beat the english under godwinson considering their army was made up of mainly of archers and infantry (not to many most were sort of trained militia). However a legion facing the normans would have serious issues dealing with the heavy norman cavalry.

If you were talking of equal numbers then it would be a clear roman victory. After all the romans defeated and defended against the parthians consistently for centuries.

>Their weapons and armor are considerably inferior.

I don't think so. if this was further in the euro timeline when steel fucking everything started being the norm maybe, but the inbreed island Germanics and the french Vikings where still using stuff that would have been right at home in roman times.

a long sword made in a similar way to their spathas, iron rings on the chain mail etc. I think the normans even had their own version of the pilum, a disposable spear that they kept chucking at the Saxons shields.

>No, the Romans of Caesar's day never fought an infantry core force with an almost equally numerous heavy cavalry support force leavened with archers who had bows more in advance than existed in the Roman world.
>Pontos.
K

>Men in t-shirts and are essentially levy are better fighters than heavily armored professional soldiers.

you are the dumbest shitposter in the multiverse

Alex was more than pikes, dumbass. Read a fucking book.

No, you are.

More dumbassery.

You had long reaching weapons that were still capable of getting through mail, something that wasn't available in Caesar's time, bows had considerably advanced, you even had real crossbows.

Granted, not everyone would have had all the cool toys, but weapons in existence in 11th century Europe were well in advance of what was around in 1st century B.C.

Pontus never fielded armies who had a close to 50-50 numerical balance between infantry and cavalry. Assuming that the period sources exaggerate but get the ratios more or less right, you're looking at like 85% inf (missile and melee combined) to 15% cav. They were a diodochi army, nothing more.

>The fyrd was the only part of the two radically different armies of Hastings.

Really? And yet I can come up with actual support for my ideas. Funny how that works.

Stop falling for the dark ages meme, it's a bit silly. Rome's advantages over medieval states are things like organization, logistics, the ability to move men and supplies rapidly, to analyze what happened after a battle and make necessary changes, or to raise new manpower if needed; that was far in advance of what a medieval polity could do.

You drop a random legion, or three random legions, off in a field somewhere and they've lost most of what made Rome tough for so long. When it comes to a pure infantry brawl against other professional troops of a later era, where weapons and tactics had pushed further than what was available in the 1st century B.C., they're going to be in trouble.

I'm impressed by how literally everything you said is wrong.

>Their weapons and armor are considerably inferior.
A force where every man has body armor, helmet, sword, dagger, shield, and a spear or javelin is inferior to a force where the sword and helmet alone would mark you as one of the better armed men?
No.

>your legion is somewhere between half to one third the size of either of the forces historically present.
Estimates for either side start at the size of a legion without auxiliaries.

>but they're away from the impressive Roman logistical system,
You mean the system where they marched with all of their supplies and foraged like almost every army in history?
That fucking system?

>They don't really have the time or position to make field fortifications
For one, the romans almost never fucking used these. Fortified camps were used at night to keep the men together and safe. They weren't digging trenches in field battles.

Second,the normans had time to build multiple fucking castles. Romans can throw up a walled camp in less than a day.

>and they've never fought against a kind of combined arms force a la what William brought if they're replacing the Saxons
Aside from the hellenes, the gauls, iberians, carthaginians, and other romans, sure.
You fucking faggot.

>I was under the impression that, although weapons had gotten better,
Both sides would be using iron with steel making rare, unintended appearances.

>norman bows
>advanced
There's literally nothing more advanced about them. They're plain fucking selfbows.

>MUH PYDNA
You mean the battle noted to be unusually poorly foguht by hellenes?
That pydna?

>MUH NOOOORMANS
Meanwhile phyrrus successfully used cavalry, pikes, samnites, greeks, and cavalry in concert.

Byzantine changes were affected because they were facing entirely different strategic and tactical considerations.
Also, they still had a shitload of heavy infantry.

Progress over time is not a certainty.

>Not to mention that the bows he has would've been remarkably superior to anything in classical Europe.
Guess how much European bows actually advanced in that time frame?

I'll give you a hint: They didn't.

>A force where every man has body armor, helmet, sword, dagger, shield, and a spear or javelin is inferior to a force where the sword and helmet alone would mark you as one of the better armed men?

William's mercenaries were far better equipped than "just a helmet" lol. The Huscarls were somewhere between 30-60% of the Hastings force, and had mail armor and good weapons.

>Estimates for either side start at the size of a legion without auxiliaries.

Show me a single estimate of the Hastings forces that were in the 4-6 thousand range, you know, one legion without auxiliary support.

>You mean the system where they marched with all of their supplies and foraged like almost every army in history?

The Fall of the Roman Empire, Macmillan, 2005, p. 55

They were supplied by an actual quartermaster corps, with taking local food sources a supplement, not a replacement, to their needs.

karwansaraypublishers.com/pw/ancient-warfare/blog/the-roman-conquest-of-iberia-logistics-and-supply-difficulties/

Here's something for just one random campaign.

>Second,the normans had time to build multiple fucking castles. Romans can throw up a walled camp in less than a day.

So, just dropped down onto the field at hastings, they would not have the time. Glad you agree with me.

>Aside from the hellenes, the gauls, iberians, carthaginians, and other romans, sure.

Show me any one of those who would break both their infantry and cavalry into multiple units which could still coordinate with each other and could pursue several objectives simultaneously in accordance with an overall battle plan, which was done by 11th century armies.

>>The fyrd was the only part of the two radically different armies of Hastings.
Sure as fuck made the majority of Saxon Armies. The professional fighters like the thanes were so few.

>There's literally nothing more advanced about them. They're plain fucking selfbows.

They had crossbows you dimwit.

>You mean the battle noted to be unusually poorly foguht by hellenes?

Do you know what an "example" is?

>Meanwhile phyrrus successfully used cavalry, pikes, samnites, greeks, and cavalry in concert.

Not the way the Normans did. Not with several split up cavalry units who are placed interspersed with the infantry to cover a breaking unit or to provide for a charge on their own initiative while still maintaining the ability for a single cohesive charge should the need arise.

He never, for instance, had a charge which was covered by the archers interspersed with the infantry to force the enemy to raise their shields, the way the last infantry charge up the hill was done; Hellenic archers did their work before the melee was joined and then that was it.

He never had his cavalry standing near in reserve to infantry who would fight in pieces and rotate (or as insurance if a group broke and ran) so that they couldn't be picked off before they could regroup.

Not all combined arms is equally tactically adept. The Normans had tricks that were well in advance of what the Classical world had to offer.

angelfire.com/mb2/battle_hastings_1066/note36_64.html

You might want to take a look at the link too, by the way.

You have no idea how any of these militaries actually worked, and are clearly repeating shit from video games.

>All the glory-seekers joined the cataphractari
You didn't "join" the catahpracts, you either had the wealth to arm yourself as one or you didn't.

And since you're obesses with who pays for what:
One society provided land and provided arms and armor for their basic infantry leaving them, on average, the best equipped in the world, even at their zentih. These men fought in combined arms units with archers and heavy infantry operating in concert, complete with multiple pre-defined formations to assume.

The other had huscarls and would literally field unpaid farmers with no protection aside from a shield.

>I wonder why the Rhine river was Rome's historical border for the majority of it's history?
Because Germany was a poor fucking backwater with NOTHING of value to justify holding it.
>Clearly they could have conquered the germans any time because they were so dominant against them
Given that the tribes that angered the romans universally faced slaughter until the empire fell into constant civil wars, yes.

>a long sword made in a similar way to their spathas
Migration era swords usually ARE spathas in all but name.
>You had long reaching weapons that were still capable of getting through mail, something that wasn't available in Caesar's time
Dane ax would be no more special to them than the rhomphia.

>bows had avanced
Point to what you think those advancements are so I can laugh at you.

>weapons and tactics had pushed further than what was available in the 1st century B.C.
See above.

>Dane ax would be no more special to them than the rhomphia.

>Point to what you think those advancements are so I can laugh at you.

themcs.org/weaponry/crossbows/crossbows.htm

>See above.

See above.

>They had crossbows you dimwit.
Bows aren't crossbows, nor were they a significant portion of either sides artillery. Nor are they even a significant advancement at this point, early crossbows were garbage weapons.

>Do you know what an "example" is?
Do you know what an "outlier" is?

>He never, for instance, had a charge which was covered by the archers interspersed with the infantry to force the enemy to raise their shields, the way the last infantry charge up the hill was done;
That's because mixed formations l;ike that are incredibly fucking weak to being counterattacked, and a competently led force that hasn't been thinned to the point of non viability would slaughter it.
>He never had his cavalry standing near in reserve to infantry
Literally every decent general did this before alexander came out his mothers fucking cunt. It's an ancient concept. Literally.
>who would fight in pieces and rotate (or as insurance if a group broke and ran) so that they couldn't be picked off before they could regroup.
Quincux, you cunt.

Also, please, post a reputable source for commonplace organized rotations of Norman infantry in field battles.

Whoops, part of my reply seems to have been blinkered out.

>Dane ax would be no more special to them than the rhomphia.

You're basing this on what exactly? The shorter length? The longer cutting area and subsequently lower pressure? The thinner haft?

Also, while not directly a response to me

>Migration era swords usually ARE spathas in all but name.

Since when is the 11th century the migration era?

The TL;DR is that an unsupported infantry force is probably going to do badly against an infantry force supported by heavy cavalry.

This is how the Romans got fucked up by Parthians and Numidians, and medieval cavalry with lances and stirrups is going to be even more destructive.

>Bows aren't crossbows,

No, but crossbows are a subset of missile weapons, and not artillery.

> Nor are they even a significant advancement at this point, early crossbows were garbage weapons.

11th century crossbows were well in advance of "early" crossbows like Gastraphetes.

>Do you know what an "outlier" is?

Oh, because cavalry wandering off to do its own thing happened so infrequently in the classical era. Zama didn't see an inferior cavalry force draw off Scipios into a fruitless pursuit. You never saw polybian legions cavalry desert (to say nothing of how writers like Caesar treat the auxiliary cavalry) Cynoscephalae (sp?) didn't have the cavalry stay out in the open like dumbasses to be crushed under the infantry.

>That's because mixed formations l;ike that are incredibly fucking weak to being counterattacked, and a competently led force that hasn't been thinned to the point of non viability would slaughter it.

Nope, they're not, because you actually have a fair bit of distance between your men, the whole shoulder to shoulder thing was an extraordinarily rare development. "Sleeves" of lighter troops existed from at least the peloponesean war and would continue on to the age of pike and shot; and somehow, they didn't manage to get crushed in counterattacks.

>Literally every decent general did this before alexander came out his mothers fucking cunt. It's an ancient concept. Literally.

And yet we rarely see it in Diodochi war. Funny how that works.

>Quincux

Was a checkerboardish pattern of infantry deployment, not an interspersed reserve of cavalry to cover said infantry if something broke.

>Also, please, post a reputable source for commonplace organized rotations of Norman infantry in field battles.

amazon.com/Medieval-Warfare-History-Maurice-Keen/dp/0198206399

>This is how the Romans got fucked up by Parthians
The parthians who lost their capital to romans three times?

>The TL;DR is that an unsupported infantry force is probably going to do badly against an infantry force supported by heavy cavalry.

The tl;dr is that the Normans barely managed a win against a force that was objectively worse equipped than them or the Romans, worse trained, and less disciplined, yet you're assuming a force where every man is in armor and which WON'T go running pell-mell after fucking cavalry down a hill is going to perform as badly or worse.

Maybe it was like that in 800's but not in 1066. they were armed to da teef.

Fyrdsmen were still a non-negligible portion of the saxon army and were not, in fact, armed to the teeth.

A saex, spear, and helmet would actually be pretty good.

One of caesars legions would have slightly worse armor than the best of either force, and better armor than almost everyone else.

Bear in mind that the Roman armies that faced the barbarians in the 4th and 5th centuries were scarcely "Roman" at all, and by the early 5th century they had abandoned most of the armor that had distinguished the legionaries of earlier days. The post-Marian Roman army of the late Republic or early Empire could have defeated any force in the field in the 11th century. IMHO, of course.

Stop posting.