Who'd win in a fight

Romanians would have done what they done best, adapt
thats how they win the carthage war, they learned how to into sailing overnight and btfo the best sailors in the world

omfg nice quadz m8

The Byzantine army would be much more suited to fighting horse archers than Romans, practical warfare with different foes forced them to get over their fear of horses and build a strong army that didn't rely on attrition like peak Rome did.

Byzantine and Rome isn't that the same thign?

Well yeah they are but in terms of historiography it's easier to be understood of you say "Byzantine" rather than "Medieval Roman"

Imagine the type of people accustomed to wearing that heavy armor all day.

Who would win in a fight: Aztecs at their peak vs Vikings c. 1000AD?:
*Aztecs can call upon zulu gallowglass mercenaries to assist them
*no biting, gauging or any weird shit
*Assuming there are no diseases

Ancient and medieval armor and kit is lighter than modern armor and kit. So just go ask any soldier what it's like.

Not sure what the Vikings had but this is the Aztecs at their peak:

>poisonous gas from priestly potions, similar to mustard gas.
>infantry of 300,000 (combination of peasant levies and professional soldiers and auxialleries)
>obsidian macuahuitl weapons
>obsidian spears
>obsidian bowmen
>obsidian atatl
>clubs
>slingers
>wooden shields and thick cotton armor
>peyote and chia seeds for armies endurance
>canoes

And should we assumed changes they did responding to the Spaniards' technology

>nets for cavalry
>captured swords attatched to lances for cavalry
>long two man spears for cavalry

>Aztec tactics in war depended on the situation. The standard attack was for the king or general to signal the start of a battle with a drum or conch-shell trumpet. Then the elite military orders (like knight) advanced first, followed by the other military orders, then the veterans and other warriors, including the novices. The battle itself usually started with a barrage of arrow and slingstones, and the soldiers on both sides advanced, probably running, over the 60 yards or so, until they met. As they ran, the frontmost soldiers used their atlatls to fling darts at the enemy, but once the two sides met, the barrages stopped, to avoid hitting their own men, and the battle became hand to hand, using oak broadswords edged with obsidian blades, or thrusting spears. Apparently those in front would fight for about 15 or 20 minutes, and were then rotated out of battle to rest, recuperate, and repair their arms.

>Battles usually began at daybreak and continued until one side of the other surrendered, or until night. Then it would resume the next day. A major goal was to break through the opposing formation so your own troops could pour through and attack the enemy from the sides and rear, but that was very difficult to do since both sides had basically the same weapons and tactics. However, since the Aztecs usually had the larger army, they would extend their front until they could go around the ends of their enemies, and then attack from the rear or sides.

>That is a pretty standard description, but the goal was victory, so there are many cases where the Aztecs tried to find traitors in the cities they were targetting to show them ways around and then they would engage the enemy army from the front while they sent other soldiers around the back to attack and take the city. Once they did, they usually burned the main temple, probably because the main armory was located by it, and once the smoke was seen on the battlefield, it was all over, because the enemy had no place to retreat to and no new weapons for resupply. In other cases, the Aztecs were known to attack, fight, then pretend to run away, and the enemy would usually follow them....right past an ambush where other Aztecs were hidden, who would jump out and attack them in the sides and rear.

For the idiots who unironically believe the romans could possibly win - romans couldn't defeat cavalry-heavy armies back when cavalry was shitty, and you idiots think they could stand against the best pre-gunpowder cavalry in the world?

I'd tell you to just kys but I want you to realize how stupid you are.
>mongols are a bunch of wild slant eyed savages chucking spears
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_military_tactics_and_organization
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Kalka_River

>roman shield tactics would btfo there arrows
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae

The Romans would lose and get KHAN'D like the Finns.

>romans couldn't defeat cavalry-heavy armies back when cavalry was shitty, and you idiots think they could stand against the best pre-gunpowder cavalry in the world?

they learned a lot by the point Attila arrived.

why do people keep acting like pre-Empire Rome was the military peak?

Romans would have been trounced, whatever the century, except maybe in an alternate universe where they had equivalent manpower to that of the Mongols by the time they reached Europe, while keeping Byzantine army equipment and tactics from OT.

The real question is, how would the mongols have fared had they pushed into the HRE, knowing they surprisingly enough seemed to have trouble with heavily armoured knights.

How does he shit without it getting sandwiched between his massive chicken legs?

Rome was just the right city in the right country at the right century.

Mongols would crush them any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Tongs

European BTFO

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Legnica

One is an entire nation/alliance of professional soldiers, the other is a much smaller group of semi-organised raiders. Aztecs, if only because they should be able to commit a dozen times more men.

Mongols didn't have nothing but horse archers just like how Romans didn't have nothing but legionaries.