Hypothetical question: Roman era soldier vs. medieval footsoldier

[Metalstrm]

Imagine that you had to pit an average Roman legionnaire or any other footsoldier of that era against an average medieval footsoldier/dismounted knight. Who do you think would win, given their technology and technique?

(disclaimer: I do not know much about medieval warfare, so by dismounted knight I'm imagining the stereotypical knight in full body armour and all that goes with it)

I'm guessing the medieval soldier, given the full armour, but who knows..

[bovi]

The roman legion depended on discipline rather than individual skill. This matchup is not a good one.

[brymht]

Exactly. I'd even venture to say the if 1 cohort of experienced Roman Legionaries were pitted against a like numbe rof standard medieval soldiers, the legionaries would win easily.

In a head ot head 1 on 1 matchup, I'd have to bet on the medieval soldier.

[QuintusSertorius]

The roman legion depended on discipline rather than individual skill. This matchup is not a good one.

Except given later legionaries were professional, full-time soldiers, I think it's dangerous to assume they weren't capable individual, as well as collective fighters.

[We shall fwee...Wodewick]

The problem is you say medieval soldier. That can mean anything from a villager given a helmet and a pike, to a foot knight in shining armour. From my personal knowledge, foot soldiers were mostly peasants, and the aristocracy fought on horse bakcs, and that very few foot soldiers were a well trained proffessional fighting force (English Longbowmen came close, but lacked training in extensive melee).

[beatoangelico]

on 1v1 I don't know, it depens on many things, especially the equipment of the medieval guy (plate? mail? two handed weapon?), in a group vs group fight romans would have for sure a big advantage

[Metalstrm]

Ok so then I rephrase: consider a cohort of roman soldiers against an equal number of medieval knights for that matter. I think medieval soldiers did fight in units, correct me if I'm wrong, but perhaps their style of fighting was more oriented towards a one-on-one kind of combat?

[Jolt]

Ok so then I rephrase: consider a cohort of roman soldiers against an equal number of medieval knights for that matter. I think medieval soldiers did fight in units, correct me if I'm wrong, but perhaps their style of fighting was more oriented towards a one-on-one kind of combat?

I'd have to bet in the medieval knights. They were basically walking tanks, and while the initial pila attack would kill many before the real fight began, once they were in melee range, I doubt a legionary carrying burdened by armor and a tower shield would effectively pierce the Knight's armor (Considering the knight would use the shield) The only chance would be to fight until the knights were exhausted (Provided that they stayed with a sufficient number to continuing defending themselves properly. Then the legionaries basically needed a good bash on the knight with their shield, throwing the exhausted man into the ground with his armor. The sheer exhaustion with the armor made sure the knight could do little to raise himself up in time before the legionary found a breach in the joints of his armor and shouved his gladius up there.

[QuintusSertorius]

Uh, no one ever "pierced" armour. They might get through joints or weakened links, but the idea of punching through steel plate is ridiculous.

Furthermore, the idea that anyone would fight in armour which made it impossible to get up again is equally silly.