Post by SolomonWPost by Alex MilmanPost by SolomonWDo you agree with this or not?
http://calvusguy.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/no-gunpowder-so-what.html
It would take more than five hundred years of development before modern
[Gunpowder] artillery could match the range and accuracy of Roman stand-off
weaponry, and firing rates weren't matched until the twentieth century. The
simple fact is, almost until the rise of Napoleon, a Roman legion with its
ten torsion powered ballistae - firing 15lb stone or lead projectiles
500-yards every 30-seconds, and sixty torsion powered three-span scorpions
- firing three-foot long darts 600-yards every 20-seconds - could out shoot
and out batter any post-Renaissance army or fortress, gunpowder or not.
Both the scorpion and the ballistae could be rotated and elevated to change
aim in moments, and the ballistae could also fire wooden or clay mortars
filled with 'Greek Fire', bringing similar devastation to exploding shells.
So did gunpowder make a difference? Not as big as you might think. In many
respects, Roman torsion technology remained the better choice of weapon in
cost, transport, re-supply, accuracy, ease of use, firing rates, range and
crew safety until the industrial revolution allowed the mass production of
cannons and firearms.
Well, to start with, site of the type "<whatever> made easy" is not necessarily the most reliable source of information so let's say that both range and the rate of fire provided in it could easily belong to the wishful thinking category or at least not necessarily represent the average numbers.
This is often true in history.
Indeed (just as with the "effective range" of various famous bows, etc.). This specific site is not even a "history" in a meaningful sense, just "history for the dummies" type of a thing.
Post by SolomonWPost by Alex MilmanLet's use what we _do_ know: reasonably soon after appearance of the relatively efficient artillery the European fortifications started changing drastically. The tall, reasonably thin walls and the towers had been replaced with the bastions and earthworks. The main purpose became to expose as little of a stonework as possible while providing a maximum flanking fire. AFAIK, nothing of the kind took place in the Roman Empire over the centuries of its existence.
The Roman artillery could not match the Dardanelles Gun
Well, this specimen was hardly a typical one but the more modest (and numerous) items resulted in a complete revolution in the fortifications, which is much more than the previous couple millennia can boast.
Of course, when author is bringing in the Greek Fire, it is just a sign of an ignorance: this was Byzantine invention and, AFAIK, it did not involve any "mortars" or bombs.
It is an open question (up to the specialists) to say if the Roman-style siege engines were superior to the trebuchets but obviously none of them resulted in a drastically new approach to the fortifications (experiments with various types of the bastion-like fortifications started during Renaissance, Albrecht Dürer developed theory of the fortifications).
Post by SolomonWhttp://www.historynet.com/the-guns-of-constantinople.htm
Post by Alex MilmanOTOH, the whole comparison of the Roman vs. gunpowder weapons is preposterous: by the time when gunpowder came into the picture, the "Roman World" had been dead for many centuries and so was his technology and military system. So "In many respects, Roman torsion technology remained the better choice of weapon" is plain silly: the firearms had not been competing with the Roman weaponry. OTOH, from the fact that non-gunpowder siege weapons had been soon enough squeezed out by the gunpowder weaponry, we can probably make a safe conclusion that the winning technology had clear advantages.
Then, of course, goes the jewel "almost until the rise of Napoleon, a Roman legion ... could out shoot and out batter any post-Renaissance army or fortress, gunpowder or not." I'm not sure if there is a need of a detailed analysis but author is obviously more than a little bit ...er... "too enthusiastic" in promoting his, rather idiotic point. Roman legion storming one of the Vauban's fortresses would be quite a sight and the same goes for the infantry armed with the sword, shield and pilum fighting a field battle against the early-/mid-XVIII century army (with something like 100 - 200 artillery pieces).
I am sure the Roman legion would be cut to pieces.
Now what about in the open in battle formation, which the article is
refering too.
As most of that article, this does not make too much of a practical sense. To start with, in how many famous battles the Romans had a _single_ legion? So you'll be talking about the Roman army of some specific period (pre-Marius, post-Marius/early Empire, later Empire, etc.) and size vs. which "pre-Napoleonic" army exactly? The Western European armies or the "gunpowder period" went all the way from 20% of infantry having the firearms ("classic" tercio) to 60%+ (Swedes of Gustav Adolph) and 100% by the early 1700s.
Then you have to consider the cavalry, which was mostly "shooting" (reitars and dragoons) and quite often amounted to more than 50% of the XVII century armies with a gradual decline of importance and proportion and a much lesser reliance upon the firearms, compare reitar of the 30YW with 4 - 6 pistols (and caracole as the main tactics) and a cavalryman of the War of the Spanish Succession.
Ditto for the field artillery with the numbers, effectiveness and tactics steadily increasing over the centuries.
Of course, a proposed confrontation is a subject of a pure speculation but here are marginally related factoids. By the early XVII Polish cavalry was reputedly the best in Europe and their hussars (the "winged"
part is a little bit overplayed :-)) had been best of the best. They were routinely winning against the Ottomans, Muscovites and even Swedes (even during the early campaigns of GA) but by the time of the Cossack Wars (mid-XVII) they were routinely failing against the steady infantry fire (strange as it may sound, the main strength of the Ukrainian Cossacks was infantry with the firearms, usually fighting in a protected position): quite often the commanders were not able even to convince them to launch an attack. By the early XVIII (The Great Northern War) they became pretty much a joke. And keep in mind that neither the Cossacks nor Swedes of the XVII century had too much in the terms of artillery comparing to the standards of the XVIII century: at Kunersdorf Russian-Austrian force had over 248 artillery pieces and Prussians - 200; attack of the Prussian cavalry (the best in Europe, led by the best cavalry general of the time) was repulsed (as in "it fled with the heavy losses and the battle was lost") by the fire of approximately 60 guns.
So how exactly do you envision your battle? :-)