Caesarian legionaries?
And as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, actual experience in the real world showed clearly and repeatedly that they could only fire one volley.
At what range? 10 yards? 20 yards?
Breastplate? Backplate? Caesarian legionaries? See the pic in my post #106.
No. See my post #95, or try reading some actual history.
I think the main problem with this thread is that most people get their ideas of military history from movies and computer games, not from… you know… actual history.
And also that they don’t read the earlier discussions in the thread, so that things that have already been discredited get rehashed over and over again.
The first cite I used said they were used by ‘early imperial Romans’. Another said that plumbata had been in use as early as 500 BC by the Greeks, but that the first historical account of their use by legions came about 400-500AD. Make of that what you will.
No, it has to go through the scutum, then the body armor, then the body, then the rear body armor, then the scutum of the next soldier, then his armor.
Nobe of those by themselves would stop a musket ball shot from under 100 yards. I’m not sure it could get through all of that stuff, llus whatever bones it hits. I’m sure there are some cases where a single shot might take out two Romans, but other cases where through luck it either deflects, misses entirely, or is stopped by hitting one of the iron bands on the shield or hits a sword or domething. I’m not sure how to account for all that.
The OP asked specifically about Caesarian legionaries. I missed this myself at first, but later it was pointed out and we all discussed it over several posts.
Plumbatae were used in a limited way by some early Greeks, but NOT by the Romans at any stage until the 4th century.
The point is that they are far more useful against cavalry than infantry. It was only in the late Roman period that legions had to face serious threats from mounted armies, and they changed their equipment and fighting style accordingly.
I looked for a cite posted by you that mentioned that they were used by early Imperial Romans, but I couldn’t find one. Are you sure you posted it? Anyway, it’s wrong.
They’re just less accurate but more deadly slings as far as Romans 100m away are concerned. Why would they form a testudo, that’s for indirect fire missiles, not slingshot.
Way too much is being made of this whole “thunder lance” aspect, the Romans were not strangers to incendiary weapons, to loud noise as terror weapon, or to lead bullets moving faster than the eye can see. They are not going to react like superstitious bumpkins.
Also, just checking, everyone knows the Romans are going to be 5 ranks deep, right?
Cite for this being the case against armoured men.
How are these splinters causing casualties to armoured and shielded men?
You’re leaving out the subarmalis, which is not, by itself, great armour, but wonderful at absorbing kinetic impact.
It seems like this thread has basically become circular. The premise of the OP is hyper-unrealistic and puts line infantry at a serious and ahistorical disadvantage versus heavy infantry. Line infantry would generally not intentionally be used at close range, by itself, against a massed formation of heavy infantry. Such things did occur, they generally are considered examples of poor military leadership, and the Redcoats doctrine by 1780 actually would have incorporated the lessons of those failings. But we’re to assume this is the case for the reason of the OP’s hypothetical.
The only genuine question is would the Romans break, like many pre-gunpowder military forces did, upon their very first ever exposure to massed gunfire? That is something we cannot answer definitively with the information provided, we can only speculate. If they don’t break, they will win because the scenario deliberately puts line infantry at a huge disadvantage, and nothing about technology in 1780 magically overcomes that advantage. Basically I don’t actually think the scenario is that interesting because I think it presupposes muskets are a much bigger advantage than they actually are, remember that military forces continued to use heavy infantry well into the early 18th century, and only started to phase it out for massed line infantry in this time. That means these technologies aren’t that far apart chronologically. Depending on how nitpicky you want to get, there were even some quasi-heavy infantry units still in use during the Napoleonic war.
Probably a more interesting hypothetical if you want to know about 100 yard effectiveness of 500 heavy infantry against musket troops would be against 500 rifled musket troops from the c. American Civil War period, or something of that nature.
Another thing to point out is a major reason for the move to line infantry is numbers, so starting the line infantry at the same number as the heavy infantry is somewhat flawed. A massive advantage of line infantry is they are cheaper to equip and faster to train than the sort of infantry they were replacing. It is actually much easier to drill men in basic marching and musket use than it is to teach them how to fight with pikes, spears, shields, move in armor etc, and develop the discipline for complicated and vigorous melee combat.
So the real advantage would be that in such a scenario, as a % of their total populations, a country deploying line infantry would be able to deploy a greater % of their fighting age men in line infantry formations than the Romans would be able to get into legionnaire level shape and discipline. So a more apt scenario might see the 500 Romans lined up against 2000 line infantry or some such. I’d have to do more research on what the ratio would be.
Yes, in fact, by Culloden in 1746, they had evolved a successful approach to use against unarmoured Highlanders with sword and shield. (The previous year, at the battle of Prestonpans, the Highlanders had won easily against raw and inexperienced regular troops.)
There was no time to reload, proved by hard experience. Each man could only fire one shot.
The new method was that the second and third ranks should fire their volleys at long and medium range, while the front rank, kneeling, reserved their fire to the very last moment at 10-20 yards. They had efficient socket bayonets by this time, and the soldiers were trained to fight against the man to their right, not in front of them, to get behind the shields carried on their left arms.
This tactic proved successful, but bayonets wouldn’t have worked very well against highly trained and armoured opponents.
It’s been a long thread, and while I have read every post, I don’t remember them all in detail. Which post did you discuss this in?
That’s a good question that I don’t have a good answer to. I know a little bit about musket-era combat and ballistics, but not enough to answer that. Blow-through might not wind up being a factor in this fanciful scenario. But it’s a factor to consider.
Sorry, I was using highly inaccurate short-hand. What I meant was front torso armor (whatever form it took), the body, and then the rear torso armor, whatever form it took. The basic point, where I was agreeing with you I think, is that a musket ball probably wouldn’t achieve blow-through if it hit a legionary straight-on center of mass.
Frank, this seems unnecessarily insulting. I have, in fact, read history. I’ve even studied Vegetius, but I’ll admit my memory of his writings is hazy. But your own post you cite says “fast jog trot”, not a wild sprint. The legionaries aren’t covering the 100 yards in under 12 seconds. Do they cover it quickly enough to prevent the Redcoats from reloading and firing a second volley? I don’t know for sure, but I doubt it. But I may be wrong.
I was using a highly inaccurate short-hand. Sorry. But I’m actually agreeing with you there. I don’t think a musket ball will achieve blow-through from a direct center-of-mass hit on an armored legionary. But a ball hitting an arm or leg could potentially disable multiple legionaries. I don’t think it’s possible to account for all the possibilities of blow-through, ricochets, etc., but it’s a factor to keep in mind.
How 1st Century Roman legionaries would react to their first exposure to gunfire is an unresolvable question. It never actually happened, so we can’t ever know for sure. But we do know a lot of troops from a lot of different times and places have panicked and routed. You think I’m overestimating the shock effects of receiving a musket barrage for the first time, by troops who have no idea guns even exist. I think you’re underestimating it. There’s no way to definitively decide the question. I will note, though, that I’ve repeatedly said that I think that it’s doubtful the Romans will be able to close to contact with the Redcoats before they break and run, not that it’s impossible.
As to the tetsudo, I was trying to account for all the tactics the Romans might employ.
I’ve got to admit, I’m flummoxed here. Since three different posters have taken me to task on this, I must have really botched what I was trying to write. I was trying to say I don’t think the musket balls would achieve blow-through on a direct center-of-mass hit. But hits to arms and legs might allow a single musket ball to incapacitate more than one Roman.
I actually was going to come back here to post about this. You’re absolutely right, that the Roman shields, helmets, and armor are actually going to very useful in protecting against fragmentation, and for that matter ricochets and underpowered rounds.
I’ve actually said upthread I don’t think Roman armor would be as useless as some in this thread seem to think. I just don’t think it’s going to be useful enough to counter the Redcoats’ advantages.
Assume they take 20 sec to cover the 100 yards from long range. Reloading, in practice, took 20-30 seconds, and a volley at long range wouldn’t be very effective, especially against armoured troops.
The Romans throwing pila as they closed would have a decisive effect against unarmoured men, causing many casualties and disrupting their formation. Particularly if it was unexpected by 18th century soldiers encountering Romans for the first time.
And if we’re positing the British waiting until the Romans are within 30-40 yards before firing their volley, what’s that going to do to the Roman ranks? Even if if the British only achieve a 50% rate of accuracy we’re looking at 250 hits. Of course that’s not 250 individuals being hit by a bullet as I’m sure some of those poor bastards in the front are going to take multiple shots. How many casualties can we expect the British to inflict with that volley? 50? 100? 150? Even if the Romans don’t panic what will that do to unit cohesion?
…and round and round we go in this merry discussion…
30% casualties from a volley didn’t stop Highlanders from charging home at Killiecrankie, and winning.
The Battle of Killicrankie was fought nearly a century before our 1780 date. I’ll posit that perhaps the British in 1780 were trained and armed in a different fashion from our soldiers in 1689.
Yes, as I covered only a few posts ago… 
However, even at Culloden, the Highlanders did still manage to charge home, and engage in hand-to-hand combat – regardless of a point blank volley.
And despite the effective bayonets and the new tactics, Burrell’s regiment still suffered 34% casualties in close combat and temporarily lost one of their colours, before a second line of regular troops moved in and repulsed the Highlanders.
Why are we assuming this? What’s the actual data, if any, on how long it would take Roman legionaries to cover 100 yards under actual combat conditions while under fire?
I think you’re underestimating the effectiveness of a musket volley and overestimating the effectiveness of Roman armor. But I also think, as I’ve said several times, that I don’t think a single musket volley will cause enough casualties that those casualties in and of themselves will render the Roman formation combat ineffective. The question, which I don’t think can be definitively answered, is if the shock and morale effects of the musket barrage cause the Romans to rout. I think it probably does, but I don’t think we can ever actually know.
Another factor that I’ve raised but I don’t think anyone has really addressed is how the Redcoats in 1780 would have been firing. Would it be one massive volley at 100 yards? If so, I think it’s more likely the Romans manage an orderly advance and close to close contact with the Redcoats. Or do the Redcoats fire alternating volleys, by rank, or platoon, or company, or a combination thereof? If so, any given volley will be less effective, but advancing under repeated barrages from a weapon you have never encountered before with no missile troops of your own to cover you would be a daunting task even for highly trained and disciplined Romans. Again, though, I’m not saying this means the Recoats automatically win, but I think the shock and morale effects make a Roman rout more likely than not.
Again, the Redcoats are trained and experienced in reloading, firing, and maintaining formation while under musket and canon fire. I’m really puzzled by these repeated assertions that javelins would be such a disruptive weapon. And while it wasn’t common for Redcoats to fight enemies armed with spears and other thrown weapons, it was hardly unprecedented. Are there any historical examples of a Redcoat formation being disrupted by a single volley of javelins?
That (hypothetical) 50% accuracy is for the first rank. What makes you think the Romans are going to be in a convenient line 500 men across? While there were battles where they did that, it was by no means standard. The cohorts will be coming at you in at minimum 3 ranks. So you’re taking out at best 1/6, not half. Better reload quickly…
I’m not an expert, but it seems to me that having the Roman come in fewer ranks would give them an advantage. A rank and file formation means that a musket ball passing through a gap on the first rank would be more likely to hit an individual in the second or third rank. If the same thing happens with a single rank, the ball is gone for good and dos no more damage. The musket fire can also be concentrated in a much smaller area than with a wider single rank.
Again, this is just a casual observation and there might be some disagreement.
One factor that I don’t think has been brought up at all in this thread so far is the potential for squibs, misfires, and under-powered rounds. We all seem to be assuming the Redcoats have a 100% rate of full-powered rounds. Under real-world conditions of manufacturing and quality control in 1780, and under real-world combat conditions, a non-trivial number of rounds may be ineffective. Which favors the Romans, of course.
Does anyone have any good sources on this? I think in 1780 the Brown Bess would have been a flintlock, and I’ve seen some alarming estimates on the misfire rate for flintlocks, but I know enough about muskets to know I don’t know enough to evaluate those claims.
How many of those 500 muskets are likely to be misfires or squibs? Is there any good information on how consistent the powder load and muzzle velocity was for actual 1780-era muskets in field conditions? I think I’m actually in the middle ground in this thread on how effective legionary armor would be against muskets (I think it would offer some protection, but not enough to be decisive). But if a significant number of the rounds the Redcoats are firing are significantly under-powered compared to the “ideal” rounds discussed so far, it seems like the armor becomes more effective.
[Or has this already been discussed and I missed it?]
It has been addressed, repeatedly.
It has been brought up.
Have you even bothered to look through the posts in this thread? Do you really think anyone is going to take you seriously if you don’t?
Do you want us to read the thread for you? Or retype arguments for you because it’s too much trouble for you to scroll up and read what we’ve already said?
