Roman Legionaire



  • First of all, I’ve heard the argument before “We already have Spartan, they’re the same thing.” well anyone brain dead enough to think that should go back to watching 300 and shouting “COOL!” at every dumb scene.

    1: Roman Legionaires used the Gladius as a stabbing weapon, not a slashing weapon, so right off the bat they are completely different in fighting style.

    2: Romans fought in stronger/tighter formations than Spartans, they also included rank rotation.

    3: Roman Pilum was not designed specifically to kill, it was designed to lodge itself in a shield and break, making it nearly impossible to use a shield effectively.

    4: Romans were all about adaptability, Spartans rarely ever adapted to situations, which is how they couldn’t keep control over Athens.

    5: Romans conquered Sparta. Repeatedly.

    Now, let’s go over possible equipment and how it may work:

    Scutum (Large rectangular great shield, required, but can be unequipped)
    Should work more like a Knight shield, than a Spartan shield, should be somewhat slow to raise.

    Parma (Smaller, circular shield, similar to a buckler, can be selected in place of Scutum)
    Smaller, but much faster ready time.

    Gladius (Stabbing short sword, Secondary/Primary weapon)
    Should do more damage stabbing than slashing, overhead should deal the same as slashing, and the slashes should have a short radius. Should have a very fast stab.

    Pugio (Small dagger, Secondary weapon)
    Fast, low damage, similar to the Pirate shank

    Spatha (Large slashing/stabbing sword, Primary weapon)
    Should be much slower than the gladius, but have a larger slashing range, higher damage.

    Hasta (Thrusting Spear, used like a Dory, cannot be thrown, Primary Weapon)
    Should deal heavy damage, but should not have pushback, should be very fast.

    Pilum (Throwing Javelin, ammo of 2, designed to impede shield usage, Primary Weapon)
    Should act like heavy Javelins from Chiv MW, same damage as the short spear when thrown, but with a special purpose, when it hits a shield, reduces stamina considerably, slows shield raise speed.

    Plumbatae (Weighted Darts, act like Shuriken, deals slightly more damage, slightly slower, parryable, secondary weapon, ammo of 6)
    Clipped to the back of the shield, should be used exactly like Shuriken.

    Arcus (Composite bow, ammo of 15, primary weapon, cannot use a shield with it (of course))
    Slower than the Samurai bow, less range, greater damage.


    Armor values should be slightly better than Viking. Armor used by default should be Lorica Hamata, level 25 skin could be Lorica Segmentata.

    I don’t see why this would be so difficult to implement. It’s most definitely different from Spartan, it’s closer to Knight/Viking than Spartan. I would love to see a Roman Legionaire, and a Gladiator at a later date.

    I would welcome a class that is based more on precision than… LMB.



  • Why should a lvl25 skin be lorica Segmentata? Why would someone upgrade from an armor that provides less protection(exposes the legs)? I think lvl25 skin should be Plumata. Seems kinda cool except maybe make larger shield oval scutum and smaller shield rectagular scutum.



  • The only real issues I can see with this is them possibly being TOO versatile, having a response to every situation, and (despite your claims to the contrary) the possibility that with a seeming emphasis on teamplay, (the big shield/spear combo is especially good at this) it may actually end up replacing the Spartan as the go-to shock trooper/support class.

    The Samurai is already pretty good for that lack-of-niche-niche, but I can definitely see this being a viable idea with a few tweaks, and a couple of changes to really make sure that it and the Spartan don’t compete for the same niche. Maybe ditch the Hasta and keep the Pilum as a special shield breaker type weapon, used for the express purpose of opening the enemy up to ballistics. For the sake of balance, maybe make it so that two successful pilum tosses would ruin a shield. Pilum recovery would be negotiable, but after the removal of the Hasta and assuming a weakness to crush damage shared with the heavier classes, I’d say it’s about good to go.



  • @Xann:

    The only real issues I can see with this is them possibly being TOO versatile, having a response to every situation, and (despite your claims to the contrary) the possibility that with a seeming emphasis on teamplay, (the big shield/spear combo is especially good at this) it may actually end up replacing the Spartan as the go-to shock trooper/support class.

    The Samurai is already pretty good for that lack-of-niche-niche, but I can definitely see this being a viable idea with a few tweaks, and a couple of changes to really make sure that it and the Spartan don’t compete for the same niche. Maybe ditch the Hasta and keep the Pilum as a special shield breaker type weapon, used for the express purpose of opening the enemy up to ballistics. For the sake of balance, maybe make it so that two successful pilum tosses would ruin a shield. Pilum recovery would be negotiable, but after the removal of the Hasta and assuming a weakness to crush damage shared with the heavier classes, I’d say it’s about good to go.

    I am inclined to agree with your whole post, though the Pilum should be borderline overpowered, but unrecoverable, so you only have a few of them per spawn. They should do as much, or a little more than the Spartan Javelin, but it should be primarily utility against shields. To seriously drain stamina, or shield break.



  • Arcus (Composite bow, ammo of 15, primary weapon, cannot use a shield with it (of course))
    Slower than the Samurai bow, less range, greater damage.

    afaik Roman legionaries rather used slings than bows (in the Rome II Forums of CA it was stated multiple times)

    my personal opinion is btw that actually neither a Spartan Hoplite nor a Roman legionaries should be a class in a game that#s build around 1on1 or atleast not 100 against 100s combat… because both were pretty f*cked when they were forced to hand to hand combat in a broken formation (the romans slightly less) look at the Teutoburg Forest… the Romans defeated even Stronger armies but as they were in a forest were they couldn’t keep theire formations they got slaughtered… btw why are there no celtic or germanic warriors? only a Norse Wiking! :D


  • Global Moderator

    Legionary. Legionnaire is French not Latin or English.



  • @Großadmiral:

    afaik Roman legionaries rather used slings than bows (in the Rome II Forums of CA it was stated multiple times)

    my personal opinion is btw that actually neither a Spartan Hoplite nor a Roman legionaries should be a class in a game that#s build around 1on1 or atleast not 100 against 100s combat… because both were pretty f*cked when they were forced to hand to hand combat in a broken formation (the romans slightly less) look at the Teutoburg Forest… the Romans defeated even Stronger armies but as they were in a forest were they couldn’t keep theire formations they got slaughtered… btw why are there no celtic or germanic warriors? only a Norse Wiking! :D

    The sling thing was during Republican Rome.



  • @vealka:

    Why should a lvl25 skin be lorica Segmentata? Why would someone upgrade from an armor that provides less protection(exposes the legs)? I think lvl25 skin should be Plumata. Seems kinda cool except maybe make larger shield oval scutum and smaller shield rectagular scutum.

    Lorica Plumata was reserved for generals. It was a scaled version of the Lorica Hamata. Lorica Segmentata was the upgrade from Hamata for wealthy Legionaries in the late Imperial era. It was light weight as far as plate armor, well constructed, it did not restrict movement, and it was easy to store. Roman heavy infantry used the rectangular Scutum, Auxiliaries used the oval Clipeus.

    @Großadmiral:

    afaik Roman legionaries rather used slings than bows (in the Rome II Forums of CA it was stated multiple times)

    my personal opinion is btw that actually neither a Spartan Hoplite nor a Roman legionaries should be a class in a game that#s build around 1on1 or atleast not 100 against 100s combat… because both were pretty f*cked when they were forced to hand to hand combat in a broken formation (the romans slightly less) look at the Teutoburg Forest… the Romans defeated even Stronger armies but as they were in a forest were they couldn’t keep theire formations they got slaughtered… btw why are there no celtic or germanic warriors? only a Norse Wiking! :D

    The Romans had entire units called sagittariorum, which were regiments of archers using the Arcus (bow). Legionary Sagittariorum was a heavy armored archer regiment, designed to kill other skirmishers, or to simply wear down opponents.

    It had nothing to do with formations, it was the fact that they were ambushed by a vastly larger force from all sides. They were hit with traps, burning haybails, and barrages of arrows, all before being hit from the front, side, and rears by heavy Germanic infantry.

    No military army in the world at the time could have survived such an ambush. The Romans had great mastery over formations, and excelled where they could use them effectively. That’s not to say that the Romans were not skilled fighters, quite the contrary.

    Roman Evocatus Centuriae were known to be incredibly skilled fighters, after being veterans of numerous wars for 25+ years. Infact, many Roman ex-Legionaries would sell themselves to the Gladiator arena to make some extra money after their service was over, many would become great champions.

    @lemonater47:

    Legionary. Legionnaire is French not Latin or English.

    Many people confuse it, and the modern usage of Legionnaire still applies in a way. Legionairy, Legionaries I do recognize the usage.



  • Roman heavy infantry used the rectangular Scutum, Auxiliaries used the oval Clipeus.

    The Scutum was originally oval. The rectangular scutum is a cut down version of it due to weight issues.

    because both were pretty f*cked when they were forced to hand to hand combat in a broken formation

    Well, the Spartans were fucked even in an closed formation because they couldn’t adapt to using new ideas.


  • Global Moderator

    Legionarius, legionarii is legionary in Latin. And yes legionarii can be used as the singular for some odd reason.

    The lorica segmentata was standard issue not long after its implementation it wasn’t reserved for wealthier legionaries. Many also preferred the hamata as it gave more flexibility. Especially in the Dacian wars where they had big falxes and it didn’t matter what armour you had it was gonna get through it steel armour was very rare and ancient roman steel wasn’t the best by ancient standards and horrible by high medieval standards. Most of it was iron anyway. It also required more maintanece. With chainmail rust falls off while being worn by with the segmentata it had to be cleaned lots. Many officers also preferred the oval clipeus shield also. Officers were also quick to pick up the spatha over the gladius copied from the cavalry who copied the auxilries. An oval shield and spatha was eventually made the standard. The spatha was used by legionaries on several accounts beforehand. Better for 1v1 combat.

    I think for level 25 a decorative centurions hamata should be worn instead. While the segmentata as the normal skin. As adinntional customisation options you could have the Manica and greaves. It you focus how legionaries equipped themselves at the start of the 2nd century AD.



  • better would be a gladiator, no?

    and could throw a net jijiji



  • This is the oval scutum I was talking about.



  • @lemonater47:

    Legionarius, legionarii is legionary in Latin. And yes legionarii can be used as the singular for some odd reason.

    The lorica segmentata was standard issue not long after its implementation it wasn’t reserved for wealthier legionaries. Many also preferred the hamata as it gave more flexibility. Especially in the Dacian wars where they had big falxes and it didn’t matter what armour you had it was gonna get through it steel armour was very rare and ancient roman steel wasn’t the best by ancient standards and horrible by high medieval standards. Most of it was iron anyway. It also required more maintanece. With chainmail rust falls off while being worn by with the segmentata it had to be cleaned lots. Many officers also preferred the oval clipeus shield also. Officers were also quick to pick up the spatha over the gladius copied from the cavalry who copied the auxilries. An oval shield and spatha was eventually made the standard. The spatha was used by legionaries on several accounts beforehand. Better for 1v1 combat.

    I think for level 25 a decorative centurions hamata should be worn instead. While the segmentata as the normal skin. As adinntional customisation options you could have the Manica and greaves. It you focus how legionaries equipped themselves at the start of the 2nd century AD.

    The 2nd century AD was most definitely not the peak of Roman power. I would argue the Augustus period to be the height of Roman dominance, though many would disagree.

    Lorica Segmentata was extremely expensive, Legionaries were required to buy their own equipment, food, and other things in question. During the late era, the government funded most equipment for the Legionaries, but my point still stands. Wealthier Legionaries could afford it, unwealthy Legionaries could not. Which is why when Segmentata became popular, the majority of troops abroad still wore the Hamata.

    Also, the Spatha, while an effective killing weapon, was terrible for use in cohesive formations. The Gladius was a far more effective thrusting weapon, and it’s size meant easier maneuverability in tight combat. Generally the Spatha would only be effective when breaking the standard battle line, but breaking formation was rarely an acceptable thing to do.

    Also, the Lorica Segmentata offered moderate protection for high mobility, it was effective. Also, if you’re implying that Roman steel was terrible, then you have no knowledge of Roman craftsmanship. I do believe the only nation at the time with superior forging methods was the Seleucid Empire, and their many satellite nations.

    Even so, I would argue that the Roman’s strongsuit was in their fighting methods, rather than their equipment. I would even continue arguing that Roman Legions would have even been a strong match against late Medieval armies.

    Also, I want you to understand something, that Rome was the most powerful and technologically advanced civilization in history. The destruction of the Roman Empire, through internal greed/corruption, and external armed forces, singlehandedly created the dark ages. It’s loss, LITERALLY set technology back by a thousand years.



  • It’s loss, LITERALLY set technology back by a thousand years.

    but not in weapon facturing nor the creating of steel… afaik it’s called dark ages cause the lack of historicall evidences of this time… but the armors and weapons of the medieval times were atleast as good (if not better) than theire roman counterparts… Welsh longbows, Gothic Platearmor, Zweihänders, (quite) High Quality Steel Swords. long lances and stirrups made the cavalry much more effective then to roman times, with the weight of the Knight behind the hit of the lance it would break bones… flails, morning stars and so on was made to negate armor bonuses so no hamata nor segmentata would use… and i’d guess a few longbow salvos could also pressure a roman legion in testudo formation… and especially if heavy knights would break their lines… and the romans never extended their realm into the territory of the parthians… (look at Crassus…) a few thousands of hungarian horse archers and they would also be quite pressured… the times the romans could really shine were against celts and germans that weren’t really unified and lacked really efficient leadership… roman steele was only good after they got steele from spain and noric steel… why would they have used it if they would have been able to create high quality steel themselves? Also: the romans back then were quite small, atleast smaller than Germans, so they would most likely also be smaller than the people in the Medieval… and then imagine the effect of a guy standing… possibly a head taller than you being clad in a steel armor, using an enormous (compared to your gladius) sword…moral goes down…


  • Global Moderator

    The Romans used the spatha when they couldn’t fight in formation. Officially part of the roman legionaries equipment under Marcus Aurelius in his German campaign.

    The barbarians had gotten a lot more advanced and cohesive by the second century. They used stolen roman equipment, copied it to the best of their abilities. And got a lot more organised. The Dacians even produced roman siege equipment as early as 90AD.

    The segmentata became very popular in the western empire. Many soldier did prefer the hamata over it though.

    Against a late medieval army? They wouldn’t do too well. They would face the same problem they faced against the Dacians. Massive two handed weapons designed to go through thick medieval quality steel armour and they also had tempered steel armour. At least the Dacians wore little armour. The mounted lancers would be heavier than any cataphract with a big lance. A formation of then hitting the Romans would be devastating. Crossbows and longbows were designed to do damage to heavy plate armour. Many crossbowmen doubled up as medium armoured melee infantry And English longbowmen weren’t poor peasants. Many were mounted longbowmen. They road to the battle. The foot longbowmen were soon to be a lot richer also. A crossbow bolt can go right through a shield. They could pierce knight armour and part way through the body they were made illegal by the pope at one stage he thought it was cheating. The Romans would lose cohesion very quickly and be cut down by superior weapons. The gladius was a good sword for piercing armour as it was short, solid and sharp but it wouldn’t do much good against medival armour. Especially if they couldn’t reach their opponent.

    Still I would of liked to see Romans. But everyone would recognise the more stereotypical early 2nd century Romans. And for customisation reasons its also a good timeframe as they were using the gladiators Manica and greaves on ordinary legionaries the emperor at the time made sure there was that equipment available for his legionaries. The manica made sure their sword arm was only damaged instead of it falling off. You can grow back an arm and that legionary was useless. Again with the greaves the less damage done the faster they can recover to fight another day. Both greaves an Manica were shortly almost completely phased out though were still used to a much lesser extent later.



  • and tbh if the Medieval people would have been that stupid that the Technology was set back “thousands” of years… i doubt they would have been able to build stuff like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trebuchets sure it was set back… but i doubt that it were thousands of years… after all the Eastern Roman Empire continued to exist until the Capture of Constantinople by the hands of the Ottomans in the 15. Century… and by then Powder weapons became more and more widespread in use… would have been quite interesting to see Legionaries in the face of Arquebuses and culverines



  • @Großadmiral:

    but not in weapon facturing nor the creating of steel… afaik it’s called dark ages cause the lack of historicall evidences of this time… but the armors and weapons of the medieval times were atleast as good (if not better) than theire roman counterparts… Welsh longbows, Gothic Platearmor, Zweihänders, (quite) High Quality Steel Swords. long lances and stirrups made the cavalry much more effective then to roman times, with the weight of the Knight behind the hit of the lance it would break bones… flails, morning stars and so on was made to negate armor bonuses so no hamata nor segmentata would use… and i’d guess a few longbow salvos could also pressure a roman legion in testudo formation… and especially if heavy knights would break their lines… and the romans never extended their realm into the territory of the parthians… (look at Crassus…) a few thousands of hungarian horse archers and they would also be quite pressured… the times the romans could really shine were against celts and germans that weren’t really unified and lacked really efficient leadership… roman steele was only good after they got steele from spain and noric steel… why would they have used it if they would have been able to create high quality steel themselves? Also: the romans back then were quite small, atleast smaller than Germans, so they would most likely also be smaller than the people in the Medieval… and then imagine the effect of a guy standing… possibly a head taller than you being clad in a steel armor, using an enormous (compared to your gladius) sword…moral goes down…

    First of all, the only thing that advanced in the Dark Ages was metallurgy. Everything else, went backwards. Hell, it took them another 700 years to figure out how to use Pike formations effectively, imagine that.

    Also, I don’t know if you realize this, but the Seleucids, Parthians, and Indians, all used Stirrups. The Romans encountered lance-wielding heavily armored cavalry quite often. They were called Clibanarii. there also where things known as Cataphracts, if you want to account for the heaviest cavalry in the world at the time, but I suppose the great platemail wearing knights were good too.

    Oh, and elephants.

    Now, you make a point that “romans could really shine were against celts and germans that weren’t really unified and lacked really efficient leadership”

    That must be a joke. You do realize that 60% of the formations the Romans mastered came from the celts, right? More specifically, the Averni.

    Rank rotation, Testudo, even the bloody cavalry formations, all came from the Celts. Romans simply perfected them. Also, you state that the Celts weren’t unified, when they literally created a MASSIVE Gallic confederation to combat the Romans.

    As for your statement about size, I would state that Romans averaged 5’3"-5’8", that’s not exactly game changing size. Also, Germans used many two handed weapons, as did many of the Eastern nations. The Falx was a terrifying two handed weapon, that the Romans managed to defeat on numerous occasions.

    Now, here’s why a Roman Legion would simply laugh at a Medieval army, ready for this? It’s going to blow your mind.

    75% of a Medieval army, generally composed of poorly trained, unorganized, and poorly equipped peasantry. Not fully armored wealthy noblemen.

    100% of a Roman Legion, contained well trained, well organized, and well equipped Legionaries, often Veterans. With supporting Auxiliaries that were recruited from surrounding areas with surrounding equipment. And EVERY SINGLE THING A MEDIEVAL ARMY COULD THROW AT A ROMAN LEGION, ROMANS HAD ALREADY SEEN BEFORE.

    Longbow men? Suebi and Messelotani

    Heavy cavalry? Seleucia, Macedon, Parthia, and Carthage. For Christs’ sake, they had to deal with 15 different sub-species of Elephant charging at them.

    Heavily armored infantry with large weaponry? Thracia, Odryssea, Averni, Cantabri, Egypt, Carthage, Macedon, Sparta, Athens, Pontus, and the ultimate nation of heavily armored infantry? Rome itself. Numerous civil wars.

    Crossbow infantry? The Romans already invented the Crossbow, it was called the manuballista.

    Trebuchet? Deary me, how terrifying, clearly the late-era ballista couldn’t possibly have been a cheaper/mass-produced/more accurate alternative.

    Missile cavalry? Yeah, Romans fended poorly against them, but they fought some of the best in the world, and learned how to counter them.

    As for your terrible morale statement, if you want to talk about morale, talk about the Picts of Briton. I’m sorry, but having to listen day in and day out to screaming, heads being tossed over walls, and constantly having to deal with raids from naked painted men that toss their own families heads as weapons… May be a bit more damaging to morale than a large man in armor with an oversized weapon. (Oh, you mean the Suebi? Yeah, they existed in ancient times too.)



  • why only the suebi? There were also the Cheruscans… and the Teutons… Furor Teutonics?.. and the ROmans had atleast a big bunc of respect before those “giants of the north” and the germanic weapons… were of quite low quality iron… and not many had them… in the medieval there were many peasents… but mercenaries as well… “but I suppose the great platemail wearing knights were good too.” good too… they had much more mass behind theire charges. And about the pikes: funny that you bring them in… it were the romans that shwoed the weakness of pike formations… if you have a big enough shield they can’t do much against you… atelast if you don’t be as clever as Alexander and use them as the holding anvil for the cavalry… and you bring in the Parthians… a Realm which the romans didn’t conquer.

    I didn’t bring in the uniication because there was still a dispute between the different gaulish tribes. And also i was referencing that they also didn’t have a “standartised” equipment
    You say: a roman legion with auxilliaries could beat any european army of the medievals… i say:
    Give me Welsh Longbowmen, French Heavy Cavalry, Eastern European light cavalry and horse archers, a few thousands Landsknechts led by Georg von Frundsberg with Pikes, Arquebuses and Muskets, genoese crossbowmen and english, german and French Heavy Knights on foot supported by Spear wielding peasents and other mercenaries and culverines and norse berserkers… and i’d assure you a victory… the finest of the roman empire agianst the finest of the medieval europe

    and one thing about stirrups and parthians

    "A coin of Quintus Labienus, who was in service of Parthia, minted circa 39 B.C. depicts on its reverse a saddled horse with hanging objects. Smith suggests they are pendant cloths, while Thayer suggests that, considering the fact that the Parthians were famous for their mounted archery, the objects are stirrups, but adds that it is difficult to imagine why the Romans would never have adopted the technology.[17]"
    so if the parthians would ahve had stirrups… why didn’t the Romans adopt them? and if you say that the Seleucids used them… why didn’t the romans adopt them after they had conquered theire realm?


  • Global Moderator

    Dacian falxmen and Germans two handed axemen were lightly armoured or had none. Medieval knights using two handers were not lightly armoured.

    The Dacians beat the Romans into submission the first time around. So much so that’s rome as part of the peace treaty had to pay tribute and send military and civil specialists to Dacia. The falx was too devastating going right through a lorica segmentata, making shields break and become useless, making roman limbs fall of and causing panic. With the Germans two handed weapons were rare. Dacia had far more iron deposits so a lot more falxmen. Dacians were also united unlike the Germans and they had other allies. Rome eventually went to war with them 20 years later and won by stealing all their allies.

    Against a medieval army they wouldn’t stand a chance. Better bows, more better crossbows (it was invented by the Greeks not Romans) and walking tanks.



  • @Großadmiral:

    why only the suebi? There were also the Cheruscans… and the Teutons… Furor Teutonics?.. and the ROmans had atleast a big bunc of respect before those “giants of the north” and the germanic weapons… were of quite low quality iron… and not many had them… in the medieval there were many peasents… but mercenaries as well… “but I suppose the great platemail wearing knights were good too.” good too… they had much more mass behind theire charges. And about the pikes: funny that you bring them in… it were the romans that shwoed the weakness of pike formations… if you have a big enough shield they can’t do much against you… atelast if you don’t be as clever as Alexander and use them as the holding anvil for the cavalry… and you bring in the Parthians… a Realm which the romans didn’t conquer.

    I didn’t bring in the uniication because there was still a dispute between the different gaulish tribes. And also i was referencing that they also didn’t have a “standartised” equipment
    You say: a roman legion with auxilliaries could beat any european army of the medievals… i say:
    Give me Welsh Longbowmen, French Heavy Cavalry, Eastern European light infantery and horse archers, a few thousands Landsknechts led by Georg von Frundsberg with Pikes, Arquebuses and Muskets, genoese crossbowmen and english, german and French Heavy Knights on foot supported by Spear wielding peasents and other mercenaries and culverines… and i’d assure you a victory… the finest of the roman empire agianst the finest of the medieval europe

    and one thing about stirrups and parthians

    "A coin of Quintus Labienus, who was in service of Parthia, minted circa 39 B.C. depicts on its reverse a saddled horse with hanging objects. Smith suggests they are pendant cloths, while Thayer suggests that, considering the fact that the Parthians were famous for their mounted archery, the objects are stirrups, but adds that it is difficult to imagine why the Romans would never have adopted the technology.[17]"
    so if the parthians would ahve had stirrups… why didn’t the Romans adopt them? and if you say that the Seleucids used them… why didn’t the romans adopt them after they had conquered theire realm?

    Because the Romans rarely used cavalry to the extent of the Nomadic and Eastern Nations, they recruited Auxiliary cavalry for that. Also, stirrups weren’t as revolutionary as some might believe, they simply made it easier to utilize a horse in combat, they didn’t perform a miracle. Many Romans, such as Julius Caesar himself, were capable of amazing feats on horses that would be considered difficult by today’s standards, and they did it without stirrups, so I spit on thine argument about stirrups.

    Also, the Suebi were the domineering tribe of the Northern Germainians. Also, the Romans didn’t respect them, they despised them. They were large barbarians.

    That’s false. The Gauls, and some Germanic tribes, had actually perfected Iron smithing, to even a superior extent than Itallic tribes. Tacitus remarks a number of times about the quality of Germanic Iron.

    Also, I can guarantee you, Elephants have a lot more mass behind their charges than a bunch of +1 Medieval Cataphracts. Romans were about adaptation, this isn’t a ‘HA WELL THIS COUNTERS THAT’ argument. This is the Roman Empire. Not some pushover barbarian nation with skilled forging techniques like France or England.

    While a Gothic Knight would probably win a 1 on 1 fight with a Legionary (And probably barely, depending on the Legionary’s equipment/experience), the tactics and organization of a Legion would far overwhelm the Medieval lack thereof.

    Remember the batte of Agincourt, and how utterly retarded the French were? Yeah, I’m certain a competent Roman general could exploit that.

    Welsh Longbowmen = Suebi Archers

    French Heavy Cavalry = Clibanarii

    Eastern European Light Infantry = anything East of Greece

    Horse Archers = lawl Parthia

    A few thousand Landsknechts = Thracian Royals, oh, but you want pikes? Never mind then.

    A few thousand Landsknechts with pikes = Any light Macedonian Sarissa infantry.

    Arquebuses and Muskets? Oooh bringing firearms against Roman infantry, isn’t that cute? Oh, by the way, Polybolos. Oh, and Chariots… by the way.

    German French heavy knights? Supported by Spear Wielding Peasants? You might be thinking of Carthaginian heavy infantry supported by incredibly well trained/armored Hoplites.

    Oh, but I’m sure your advanced metallurgy will make up for all the complete lack of organization or cohesion on that battlefield of everyone speaking completely different languages.

    Oh wait, the Romans taught everyone in their Empire Latin, helping them recruit auxiliaries and use them in battle… My my, how strategic/resourceful of them.

    But seriously, no, the ball is clearly in the court of the rich people playing with swords. Did you know that it was against the law for a peasant to kill a knight? I’m sure the Romans would follow that rule, and not kill the only worthwhile infantry in the entire army.