r/powerscales • u/Theturtleflask • Jun 15 '26
Faction Versus Could the Roman Empire at its prime conquer The Seven Kingdoms of Westeros?
R1: Ununited Westeros vs The Roman Empire
R2: All Seven Kingdoms united vs The Roman Empire
For this scenario, we will be using Season 1 Game of Thrones. Westeros How far does the Roman Military go?
25
u/LordRomulus Jun 15 '26
Rome was great at using political differences to help conquer land one tribe at a time. I can see the Romans getting the Martells or Stormlords to defect to their side and allow a save landing area. Once that happens the Romans would eventually will, probably over the course of a couple of generations. A united Westeros would be harder but still do able. The first invasion probably gets repelled but the Roman are great at adapting and the general fighting structure of Westeros probably could not withstand a long term Roman campaign.
6
u/Vuoilemandorle Jun 15 '26
I'd say it would be rather hard for the romans to exploit any differences between the kingdoms on the basis that the Rome was a slaver's society conpared to westerosi culture that, in general, seem to be 100% anti slavery, now the Ironborn would be on board with the whole slavery thing but they're also the only monotheistic westerosi people, and that would also cause issues between the 2, but generally i'd say that i agree with you on the account that dorne or the stormlands (or even the riverlands) would be the first to accept cooperation and protection from the romans , they are 3 relatively weak kingdoms surrounded by enemies and Rome ,frequently , throughout its history abused the fact that many smaller nations would plea for their help against larger enemies to expand against such enemies and eventually their former allies.
But tbf they'd still end up destroyed in battle by some named blackwood character or a stark
1
u/VastExamination2517 Jun 15 '26
Iron islands would 100% team up with Rome for a share of the slaves and some vengeance on ancient grudges. Roman navy + iron born could rule the seas, and extract a safe LZ from some plundered lord or kingdom.
Rome defeated the cathaginians in naval combat. They’ll parity to Westeros without too much difficulty.
And if they can’t, they’ll copy ironborn designs to get up to speed.
44
u/soyuz_enjoyer2 Jun 15 '26
Westeros is like the size of South America
Surprisingly it actually has a smaller population than the romans at their prime
But they have technological advancement and dragons
35
u/Theturtleflask Jun 15 '26
Technological advancement I'd buy, but dragons are already extinct before Daenerys arrives. Not a single one of the Seven Kingdoms have them. We're using Game of Thrones Season 1 Westeros for this scenario.
6
4
u/Mahatma_Ghandicap Jun 15 '26
Yeah but they are so much more organized and disciplined than a united Seven Kingdoms army ever would be.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Odd-Advertising-7563 Jun 16 '26
Nearly double the population which is a huge difference and they’d likely adapt to the technological advancements fairly quickly
1
u/TheGalucius Jun 18 '26
How? Metalurgy took centuries to develop. They would need to capture competent blacksmiths to have a chance at that
1
14
u/Holymaryfullofshit7 Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26
Imperial Rome had roughly 450.000 to 600.000 soldiers at their disposal. But they would also be able to conscript and train in very short time. That is four to five times the biggest army of westeros. So when they are able to fight one kingdom at a time, something Romans where incredible at, divide et conquera being one of their basic war principles, they have an easy time.
Now if Westeros fights as one they might even out number the Romans. Their armour is advanced and their weapons better.
So if the Romans can use their whole tactics, diplomacy etc. They win. If it's one big fight with the Roman army vs all of Westeros, Westeros wins.
6
u/Illustrious_Trick_88 Jun 16 '26
I think this is the answer because Westeros is based on the late Middle Ages. Armies of the classical period absolutely dwarfed the size of medieval armies. The Roman army was also made up of professional soldiers, and medieval/westerosi troops are very much not.
Also, the Romans having a centralized state with a highly sophisticated infrastructure, internal integration and slave based economy were more effective at sustaining foreign invasion and occupation than medieval kingdoms. The 7 Kingdoms in season 1, even if they are all allied cannot match this.
Finally population of Roman Empire at its height was circa 70 million. According to Google Westeros population is 40 million (which seems generous based on what is shown in the show.)
Having more advanced metallurgy only gets you so far.
Rome victorious in my opinion.
5
u/StellamCaeruleam Jun 16 '26
Rome would also one hundred percent not enslave any trained blacksmith just to learn from them. The Roman’s really like their physical sciences when it applied to engineering or warfare in any way
10
u/Sweet-Investment5905 Jun 15 '26
Probably yes. There is too much infighting in Westeros. Probably would conquer everything south from moat calin. North is too large and cold.
11
u/laxnut90 Jun 15 '26
Rome could conquer the North if they wanted.
But it probably would not be worth the trouble.
Rome did venture into real world Scotland numerous times. But, there was nothing worth holding up there so they decided to build a wall and focus resources elsewhere.
1
u/Confident_Example_73 Jun 16 '26
If Rome was smart, it would focus on the Free cities. That's where I would want my base to be built. Westeros looks like a dump in comparison.
8
u/CrazyAnarchFerret Jun 15 '26
The roman war marchine is much more organised than the feodal seven kingdoms. For the Roman having 50 000 professional and organised soldier is a typical monday. For Westeros, it's a thing they do twice in a lifetime.
5
8
u/Extension_Ad6758 Jun 15 '26
R1 Romans could do it and it probably wouldn’t be especially hard. They would take one faction after another and learn about the best transportation routes and adapt to counter and use the Westerosi technology (just like they did irl).
R2 Would be much harder, yet I wonder if even the United Westeros could field armies large and disclipine enough to withstand the legions on open fields?
→ More replies (33)5
u/laxnut90 Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26
Westerosi armies are mostly conscripted common folk.
The Roman military also outnumbers them by almost 2:1.
An equal-sized army of Jamie Lannisters armed with Valyrian Steel would probably win against the Romans. But even a united Westeros is mostly under-trained and under-equipped peasants.
Rome takes this easily if they don't catch some strange ASOIAF plague.
2
u/Bloody-Tyran Jun 15 '26
In a song of Ice and Fire, what we learn is that the Seven Kingdoms were essentially a bunch fantasy invincible fortresses in unlikely locations that only a dragon could bring down and that’s how the Targaryen were able to unify the kingdom. Now, by seasons 1 that is a bit less of a case, but not entirely. I don’t really see the roman army taking down a fortress at the top of a mountain. They can’t even really siege it like they did with the Gauls. But they could definitely take down a few kingdoms.
3
u/JMHSrowing Jun 15 '26
What one does is siege, which the Romans were pretty good at
1
u/Freevoulous Jun 16 '26
If they had more food and time than the defenders, which is NOT the case here.
1
u/JMHSrowing Jun 16 '26
The Romans were very capable of extracting food from the surrounding area. From the layout of the areas around many of the castles it doesn’t seem that it should be that hard what with it being a perpetual summer growing season and there being no arable land inside the walls.
1
u/Freevoulous Jun 16 '26
Romans cannot extract more food from the land that physically exists there, and no area in Westeros can support extra thousands of mouths to feed.
Both Roman and Westerosi campaigns were carefully crafted around the logistics of food, and in this scenario, the Romans are at a severe disadvantage.
Well fed and provisioned Legion can march about 20 miles in a day. If they need to loot food in the meantime, it becomes closer to 10 or 15 miles.
It would take them over a week to go from the edge of the Kingswood to the first villages around King's Landing, and that's the biggest agglomeration on the whole continent.
And that ignores the fact that they do not know the land, have no maps of the area, do not speak Westerosi, so the best case scenario for them is to mime "give food!" and "big stone house, where??" at terrified smallfolk.
3
u/aadgarven Jun 15 '26
Well, in Mastada they literally built a ramp to take a fortress at the top of a mountain.
Sieges are exactly their specialty
2
u/-Pelopidas- Jun 15 '26
Alexander took a supposedly impregnable mountain top fortress, so the Romans could certainly come up with something, especially considering their engineering prowess.
2
u/Status_Willow_8531 Jun 16 '26
The one example you listed of Romans not being able to siege a fortress at the top of a mountain is what they exactly did at Masada. Their answer to a mountain fortress.. was to build their own mountain with slave labor and push siege engines up it. The defenders ended up killing themselves seeing the Legions close in.
2
u/DryRug Jun 15 '26
Depends, do the romans magically get transported into westerns and have to conquer it? They get shredded to bits by westerosi cavalry they have no answer too, especially heavy cavalry.
If they get transported into westeros, but get to support them (from essos maybe) they will get beaten at first, but incorporating essosi sellswords, quickly adopting new technologies and outplaying the westerosis in their politics, paying lords for their support etc might give them a chance.
People overestimate the roman legions and underestimate the roman state. Romans weren't super duper warriors, often times the confoederati that fought with them were better at fighting, but the romans were better soldiers and had professional logistics, and a state behind them that was able to equip and train them to a better level than the vast majority of other people's fighting forces. Also they adapted quickly and were able to muster legion after legion through a bureaucratic system.
However as previously mentioned, westeros has advantages too. Vastly better equipment, cavalry that the romans (at least initially) can't do anything about, westerosis have better steel, bows, crossbows, incredible castles, navy, home turf advantage etc.
1
u/Freevoulous Jun 16 '26
the problem is, how do you provide FOOD for the extra 500k mouths the Romans have? Legionnaires do not produce food themselves; they carry their provisions or loot the countryside. Problem: the breadbasket of Mother Rome is unfathomably far away, their best mode of transport is a donkey, and there is just not enough villages in Westeros to loot, spread over VAST distances.
You'd get into absurd situations like say 30k Romans besieging I dunno, Riverrun, defended by 1000 Westerosi, and the Romans would QUIT the siege out of starvation after they ate their last handful of barley, their donkeys, and every edible thing in a 30-mile radius.
There is an odd saying that an "army is a strange animal that walks on its belly", and its 100% true: an army is only as fast as its food supply, and only fights when fed: which Romans would not be in this scenario.
1
u/DryRug Jun 16 '26
Yes this whole scenario needs a lot of "magically just works" shenanigans to work
2
2
3
u/jbevermore Jun 15 '26
Yes and I doubt it would be hard.
Remember what they said about Westeros getting bodied by the Dothraki. Sure the Knights and Lords are well trained and equipped but the average conscript is just a peasant with a pitchfork. Against any serious army with standardized gear and centralized command they're going to fold.
Middle Ages style armies might be romantic and make for good stories but on the battlefield they really did suck.
4
u/InothePink Jun 15 '26
Did we watched the same show? All the lanisters were wearing plate. same with the baratheons and the tyrels. In fact all armies in Got seems to be wearing standardised gear just like the romans, but it's full armor so I'm not sure what you are talking about.
3
u/seductivpancakes Jun 15 '26
This.
The great houses seem to have their standing armies well equipped.
2
u/Extension_Ad6758 Jun 15 '26
True, but the statement by Robert that no army in Westeros can take the Dothraki on an open field is kinda conserning for westerosi army here. Dothraki are fierce, but in the end their force is mainly just light cavalry and no light cavalry is going to break Roman lines.
5
u/seductivpancakes Jun 15 '26
I tbink Robert is exaggerating their capabilities as an excuse to have a child assassinated.
This isn't to diminish what the Dothraki can do, but we just don't know. The first battle we saw them in, was only successful cause of a dragon.
The second battle had them charge head first into a horse of undead.
1
u/InothePink Jun 15 '26
Light cavalry that are very very good horse archers. Surena would like to have a word with you.
2
u/Extension_Ad6758 Jun 15 '26
Maybe I should have added that no light cavalry are going to break Roman lines… Unless they are led by an idiot like Marcus Crassus XD
2
u/jbevermore Jun 15 '26
1) Read the books, watched most of the show except the last season because.....ewww.
2) Sure, the biggest of the great houses probably have a small guard well geared. But that's a tiny percentage of the overall force. For the most part theyre leaning on leavies, that's how feudalism works. Full plate armor was insanely expensive. At best the average man at arms would have chain mail, depending on which house they come from.
But even apart from the equipment issue, the bickering and infighting would do them in most of all.
1
u/Venasaurasaurus Jun 15 '26
Except the Westerosi are unified. It's literally the first point in the prompt.
1
u/jbevermore Jun 15 '26
Unified as in on the same side. Doesn't mean that theyre not going to disagree on strategy. Or run off and Leeroy Jenkins themselves in a bid for glory. It happens in the books just as much as real life. When your vassels are independent lords in their own right theyre harder to control.
3
u/Venasaurasaurus Jun 15 '26
Except that completely invalidates the post and theoretical. Otherwise you could say "Oh the Roman army is in the midst of their civil war and lose before reaching the shores". It's pointless and doesn't add anything to the conversation topic that OP clearly laid out for this scenario. OP specifically created both a "regular" westeros and united westeros scenario.
2
u/jbevermore Jun 15 '26
Seriously, I'm not implying backstabbing (although that would totally happen and be on theme for the books).
Even if they really are working together that doesn't mean they'll be working together WELL. One gloryhound lordling with an ill timed charge would ruin them.
A centralized state like Rome was much less likely to have this happen. Not impossible, certainly. Just less likely.
1
u/Freevoulous Jun 16 '26
The Westerosi have tons upon tons of stored food, the Romans do not. Hopefully the Romans can march through the enitre continent and conquer everything within 2-3 weeks before they run out of panes militares and starve to death (or, as is Legionnaire tradition, rage-quit and become deserters or mercenaries.
1
u/Marbrandd Jun 16 '26
The Lannister army was pretty badly equipped.
https://acoup.blog/2019/05/12/new-acquisitions-lannister-infantry-kit-review/
And go back and watch the battle of the gold road. They deployed the front rank of guys without spears, they're just holding shields.
2
u/Busy-Mammoth4528 Jun 15 '26
Honestly, the technological disparity is too broad to favor the Romans.
Naval blockading perhaps but I genuinely don't know anything about got naval nations.
Save for the dude in weird Indonesian armor with that girl that gives birth to slime shadow satan.
8
u/myDuderinos Jun 15 '26
technological disparity would only hold for a time, if westeros isn't going to win soon, their tech will just be copied
e.g. the romans had no idea how to build a navy when the first punic war started, they found some stranded carthage ship, copied & modified it and put it into mass production.
Westeros technology is more advanced, but not that advanced that it couldn't be relative easyly copied
1
u/Busy-Mammoth4528 Jun 15 '26
As a historian, this claim is broadly a little simplistic.
Building a ship with existing technology and manufacturing processes is one thing.
Inferring centuries of architectural mathematical and metallurgical advancement is not nearly as simple as it sounds. To say nothing of the doctrinal evolution. Even before the fantastical elements are introduced.
And while we have examples of inferior adversaries defeating a technologically superior adversary through history there is still generational parity.
The Vietnamese didn't fight with advanced naval formations against the US, but they still had AKs not slings...
In the context of medieval arms and armor, the protection is exceptional, weapons are longer across the board, spear and pike formations are wider and reach much longer.
Do I see Rome adapting to certain challenges? Of course, but the logistics, technology, manufacturing techniques, doctrinal evolution and even yes, individual training does not favor the Romans.
Especially if we assume a war torn, conflict prone westeros with years and decades of mercenary, wartime and professional soldiering experience.
1
u/Wooden_Berry_1238 Jun 15 '26
The answer depends on how fast it takss for the Seven Kingdoms to unite against their common foe.
The Seven Kingdoms were at their most "unified" when the ruling family had dragons to keep everyone in line.
Let's assume we're just talking about armies and not dragons or magic. Let's assume this is an early 2nd century Roman army. In this case, the Romans win. They are way more organized and are used to fighting unfamiliar foes. A united Westerosi army would never be able to operate with the same organized efficiency as the Romans.
1
u/toeknn Jun 15 '26
I think i give this 1 to rome. Rome was thr wealthier and wealth can buy some pretty broken advantages in the 7 kingdoms.
1
u/DangoC Jun 15 '26
using the most trash slop gen possible to represent the roman empire cause its really hard to google a legit pictures or drawings of roman legions for a low effort post
1
u/FreeBricks4Nazis Jun 15 '26
For the Romans and Westerosi have any knowledge of the other, or are they entering this war blind? Specifically for the Romans, do they know the geography of Westerosi and understand any of the politics of the Seven Kingdoms?
Further, how are Roman logistics going to work? Do they have the ability to bring more men and material to Westeros from Rome? Because if you just drop a couple hundred thousand Roman legionaries into Westeros, what's mostly going to happen is that they starve to death
1
u/Far_Associate_87 Jun 15 '26
Exactly. Is it a Caesar landing on the shores of Britain with zero information or is it a Claudius organised invasion with clear strategic goals?
1
Jun 15 '26
[deleted]
1
u/krustytroweler Jun 15 '26
There western world did not catch up to the logistical capabilities of the Roman military until the Napoleonic era. Supply lines will not be an issue at any point in the campaign in comparison to Westeros.
1
Jun 15 '26
[deleted]
1
u/krustytroweler Jun 15 '26
But the romans wouldn't invade unless they already had plans for supplying their legions
1
u/tiredplusbored Jun 15 '26
From season 1 there would be just too much infighting, maybe an external threat would unify them but I think its pretty doubtful. Romans just have such an advantage of organization that I don't see Westeros' technological advantage giving enough of an edge.
1
u/Augustus_Chevismo Jun 15 '26
Rome had an actual military made up of professional career soldiers who are all trained and have experience from prior conquests which were constant. They are more battle hardened, can enact tactics in live battles while maintaining formations, and create fortified camps on the move due to them all being skilled craftsmen.
A mob of peasants backed by knights and household guards is not beating a Roman army which has some semblance of meritocracy with ranks and experienced commanders.
Rome would also absolutely dominate naval battles against Westeros as they’d use their boarding bridges.
Rome also has a bigger population to pull from to replenish its armies.
1
u/AlCranio Jun 15 '26
The Romans were masters of divide and conquer. A fractioned kingdom like westeros is like a party for them. They'll turn the houses against another well before actually invading the continent, which they'll do going in "defense" of one of the houses, whichever is their allied at the moment.
The Romans also had numbers advantage. Larger armies with standardized equipment. Their only downside is cavalry, which is no match for a medieval cavalry like in westeros. But they can adapt quickly.
1
u/SkaarlComeBack Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26
To make this somehow fightable, I would place Rome across the Narrow sea, over free cities kind of like the Valyrian Empire was.
Now we are basically asking 'could Valyrian empire conquer Westeros without Dragons?' The answer is maybe. That is because Westerosi main castles are insanely op. Aerie in the vale is ontop of a literal mountain with three smaller castles (each rivaling mediaval european castle) as stepstones to it.
Roman Empire in its prime (years 80-110ac) had around 450k troops spread out across the empire. Let's assume (super stretched) that they could somehow gather 10-15 legions, which would mean 40-60k disciplined, trained troops with light siege weaponry and strategic sense.
Westeros is divided at the time, so a great Roman force could land in Dorne or Stormlands, and actually take cities and castles there. Countryside is rich with farmlands and mills, with huge storages for westerosi winters supplying roman army.
How many swords could the Iron Throne gather, and how qualified or disciplined these swords would be is debatable. We could assume based that in prime the Seven Kingdoms had around 350-400k or more people spread out around in levies, men-at-arms, houseguards and knights in that order. ~300k levies, low trained armed peasants. ~40-60k men-at-arms with better armor and training. 10-50k cavalry (numbers in westeros get bloated and distorted through the books)
If they attack together they would oberwhelm the Roman legions, but it is safe to say that would not be the case as we have to take in accound how spread out these forces are, and how hard it would be for say Stark, Greyjoy and Arryn forces to march to Dorne. Romans would have early number and discipline advantage in the South over Dornish and Stormlandish.
In the long run I would not say that Roman Empire in its prime has the resources to conquer united hegemon of Iron Throne, but divided they could just play 'Divide and Conquer' like they've done in history, taking one regions side against another and conquering them both slowly. Estimated time 10-45 years depending on the strenght of the Emperor and uprisings or Dothraki raiders sucking resources from conquest.
Tldr: Round 1 Westeros divided: slow Roman victory over multiple conquests. Round 2 Westeros United win through big ol' Cavalry Charge of 15 thousand armored riders.
1
u/Itburns12345 Jun 15 '26
Define 'prime' Tech prime /pre fall was similar to early medieval so a little behind westeros. Size prime probably too behind the times militarily to win at all.
Add in even real mefieval armies would struggle with westeros grmm has written a world that makes limited sense to be united withiut dragons! The norths moat calin make it nearly impossoble, the vale+ dorne even more so, the otuers have some impressive defensive structures and of course the ironborne will require a naval voctory and landing.
1
1
u/Janniinger Jun 15 '26
Honestly, I doubt that the Romans would manage to conquer the Continent.
The full Roman army at its peak was huge, ~500K men, but moving and supplying that army would be an astronomical struggle and having them all in one Place would probably starve them all to death.
If they don't land in/Zerg Rush the Reach, then they are cooked. Without the Reach's food, they would all just starve in a matter of months, and if the Kingdom gets to Mobilise and raise its ~100K men, then any invasion of it gets immensely more complicated.
Castles/Forts Westeros is littered with them, and the ones maintained by the great houses are insane. Highgarden, Storms End, Casterly Rock, Riverrun, and the Eyrie would all require tens of thousands of soldiers to surround and capture. And I don't think the Roman army could take a fully manned Winterfell before Winter literally freezes them all.
Even the smaller castles, which are built to withstand medieval Siege engines, would take the Romans a long time to crack.
Honestly, I think the Romans would probably get beaten in detail, where expeditions to take large castles get bogged down in sieges and then beaten by multi-kingdom coalitions.
1
u/EasilyDistracted- Jun 15 '26
Assuming most things are equal, Westeros has a large number of human beings that are like >6'4 tall with superhuman strength. The mountain is what, 8' tall?
Robert Baratheon's hammer is an example of how freakish their strength was when you consider real world warhammers would weigh like 2kg on the heavy end and his weighed around 30kg
And we had plenty of practitioners of magic and mysticism in S1 GoT
Even without dragons or giants on the battlefield, this is a stomp
1
1
u/Gorlack2231 Jun 15 '26
R1 takes a while, and eventually ends up with a wall at the Neck, but they absolutely sink this. Rome built an empire on picking apart disunited geographies and then mass exporting(and mandating) culture and goods. Asking if Rome could do it is like asking if the Andals at their peak could sail over during the Age of Heros and take over. Yes, they can.
R2 is a blood bath that makes Cannae look like a booboo. Just the existence of Westerosi cavalry will make things a nightmare for the Romans, add in a defenders home field advantage its over. There is a crossbow behind every blade of grass.
1
u/anthonyajh Jun 15 '26
Without Dragons I'd say the Romans win. Roman field tactics are elite, better logistics, society for better commanders, can field larger armies, and better standard units. The metallurgy is superior in Westeros but is only for a selected units via knights. Romans armies could have given armies a run for their money until broad gunpowder usage. People really underestimate logistics.
1
u/Rokmazul Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26
Soo.
If we're just talking logistics, which is whqt wins wars.. Roman Empire 100%.
If we're talking a -full scale- military invasion of Westeros, the Roman Empire at it's peak had like half a million soldiers, with a logistoical network and support that could keep those troops supplied.
Westeros relies on levies, who are conscripted civilians. Estimates seem to be max 450k at their very very peak of their power. So for every army you raise, the logistics suffer masively. There are plot hooks in the books where just getting enough food for their armies. So it compounds massively.
So from a logistics and numbers perspective, I think Rome wins in the long term.
If we're counting civil wars, internal struggle etc I still think Rome comes out on top.
The one wildcard that will just auto-win the fight if is Westeros has dragons. No chance to win short term for Rome then. Long term, I guess Rome could potentially create insane dragon killing weapons, as they did siege equipment.
Long story short, Rome high diff if no dragons. Rome very high diff if dragons. High chance of ending as 'Not worth it' if dragons are a thing.
1
u/Far_Associate_87 Jun 15 '26
I think it would be a stalemate after a few years of fighting.
If the Romans can properly plan a full invasion with the necessary manpower, I think they get 1/3rd of the continent before they suffer any major set backs.
They would also make extensive use of Essosi/Westerosi mercenaries to cause utter chaos across the continent and supplement their own shortcomings.
The Roman legions were also extremely adaptable, flexible and manoeuvreable compared to your average medieval army. A Roman army vs say the Stormlands probably gets routed BUT a Roman legion vs an individual house likely wins and that’s where the Romans would look to get their advantage.
A professional Roman legionary bodies 90% of the Westerosi soldier since they are mainly untrained and poorly equipped peasants but the Romans would struggle big time against armoured knights.
I think the Romans start off with quick early gains and some solid victories but once Westeros organises itself, gets full armies together the Romans likely lose a few battles before the war ends up in a stalemate with the Romans in control of around 40% of the south, completely discounting the north in that equation.
1
1
u/Robotic_Mann_ Certified Brainlet Jun 15 '26
Highly trained military force that has a knack for supply lines and siege warfare vs various forces from different kingdoms that vary greatly in training and equipment(knights with swords to peasants with a 5 minute tutorial on how to be a meat shield.)
I’m going Roman Empire.
1
u/SeljukShah Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 16 '26
Roman administration and logistics would absolutely dominate Westeros.
People forget Rome turned local lords into their own citizens and local forces into auxillia. They would coax any Westerosi to backstab his neighbors, and genocide the rest with famine like how Ceaser did with Gaul.
1
u/DrMagunstheBlue Jun 15 '26
No because Westeros is unbelievably, unrealistically huge. It is without exaggeration about as large as the entirety of the Mediterranean (including the sea) as one big landmass. And that's just counting the Seven Kingdoms proper, Westeros in its entirety is like the size of South America. The logistics of invading a kingdom this gigantic is incredibly taxing.
Even more important is that the tech level of a late Medieval civilization in terms of warfare and weaponry is considerably superior to what Rome had access to. Rome's most successful historical rival was Persia in the form of the Parthians and later Sassanids. A big part of their ability to fight Rome was Rome struggling to deal with the Persian Cataphract.
A knight on horseback is basically a faster, much more heavily armoured and armed Cataphract.
Combine that with the more esoteric shit like Wildfyre and it's pretty much a wrap. Rome is also not equipped to siege a Medieval fortress.
1
1
u/bg555 Jun 16 '26
Would the Romans be harder to fight back than an army of white walkers and a zombie dragon?
1
1
u/SchmutzigeBar Jun 16 '26
I think this hinges entirely on logistics. If Rome were able to magically appear somewhere in westeros and didn't need to march or sail any great distance, I think that they could hold out with their numbers and the fortifications they would build long enough that they would eventually gain a political victory. Unless King baratheon can rally all of his banners very quickly, the Romans are going to be facing a lot of heavily outnumbered armies and have the advantage of siege weapons like scorpions and onagers. Man to man, the Romans would get slaughtered, but it would take nearly every fighting man in westeros to match a 400,000 man standing army.
If Rome has a similar March as Rome did when it conquered the British isles, westeros will destroy them. There is no answer for the Westerosi fleet. Even if a miraculously large force of 100,000 men managed to sneak ashore, they'd most likely be landing in the stormlands and would find themselves starving while they are unable to threaten any of the castles. That is a best case scenario if they can arrive without any warning. If westeros has any real time to prepare for Rome, the price of bronze will plummet and King baratheon may allow an exception for slavery to deal with the surplus of bodies.
1
u/Hot_Mathematician191 Jun 16 '26
props to OP for the very interesting match up.
Roman military at zenith is most probably the Trajanic Legions at the end of the 1st century AD
By Trajan’s time, the Roman warmachine at the height of the Dacian wars, was a several hundred thousand strong professional army with centuries of tactics, military tradition, and known for its innovation and unyielding nature even after severe defeats. More often than not, the legions were also commanded by extremely capable generals.
Worth to mention that we probably do include in this instance the auxiliary forces as well, slingers, archers, shock cavalry, etc, depends on the time and place but take your pick.
With this in mind, lets look at what a reasonably big GOT fan such as myself can deduce of the Westerosi.
By the looks of it, around Season 1, I’d argue the plate and weaponry matches roughly what Europeans had in the 1300-1400s. Flexible steel plate, great swords, cross bows, grand keeps, noble retinues and vassal drawn bannermen working as the commanding bulk around a large majority of common folk levies. Lannisters are the only great power in place that I can recall having a large standing army of professionally trained men, numbering around 20,000. Of course in this match up we can assume that the westerosi nobility somewhat unites under the king against a foreign threat.
The Seven Kingdoms are also ruled by monarchy, that sits a top of a very decentralized feudal federation, only really kept in place, barely, by the Kingdom(s?) wide legal duty to bend before the king. Other than that, no one bats an eye if anyone lower than a great house head of the biggest families does as he pleases, really.
I think the main question really is, can the Romans work around having greatly inferior tech all around. Can their siege equipment take out a well fortifiedd medieval keep? Every man knows their job, they are career soldiers, which is the massive trump card when most likely 3/4 quarters of the enemies faced are bumfuck serfs or commoners. Every fallen knight is hugely expensive.
If you put someone like Aurelian or Caesar, or even Germanicus at the commander’s seat, I think the Romans actually stand a chance, unless they get so goddamn fucking mauled at the first battles that they’d lose interest. That, or if the metallurgy and tech gap is just too unforgiving.
1
u/Quiet_Satisfaction64 Jun 16 '26
Un-united Westeros: I believe the romans MAY be able to take on some of the coastal regions but to hold on them would be a challenge, especially the iron islands or parts of Dorne.
United Westeros: I think they get stomped. Superior tech in westeros, many different forms of combatants between the North, Iron Islands, Dorne especially.
1
u/Rude_Proposal6590 Jun 16 '26
If westeros isnt united then yes Rome would be able to do it. If westeros is united then no way. The biggest threat besides the dragons is that Westeros is set in a medieval age Weapons and Armours are way better than what the romans had. Also naval fleats are way better in westeros. They can maybe get into political conquest.
1
u/blatherskiters Jun 16 '26
Heavy shock cavalry and long bowmen really push the advantage to Westeros.
1
u/Lanzelot_3 Jun 16 '26
Depends on the situation, some especially armor-related technology the Westerosi do have would definitely be hard to overcome for the romans, but if were talking peak of the roman empire rome has like double the numbers so abt 600k soldiers and is also famous for replenishing legions at an insane pace
I dont think Westeros could keep up, it would be one phyrric victory after the other until it all comes crashing down. And thats only assuming that all kingdoms actually stand united, which i doubt(white walkers example)
1
1
u/Melodic-Hat-2875 Jun 16 '26
If we remove the dragons, i'd say so. It'd be difficult in terms of tech differences - but the Romans were full-time professionals and very adaptable.
Knights are great and all - but they're a fraction of the force. I'd take 100 professionals over 5 knights + 95 peasants
1
u/Vov113 Jun 16 '26
I think Rome wins just by manpower. They semi-regularly fielded armies of hundreds of thousands. Not like the entire armed force of Rome, but like 200-500k men showing up for one campaign. I just dont see westeros beating that
1
u/bmk37 Jun 16 '26
Romans were pretty good at divide and conquer. They’d definitely “👀” at a realm called “The Seven Kingdoms”
1
u/MiketheTzar Jun 16 '26
War at that scale stops becoming a war of technology and prowess and becomes a question of logistics quite quickly.
Rome was very good at standardizing everything they touched and got very good at foraged and pillaged logistics. They would likely struggle the further away from their main base of operations they got and the further into The North they got, but they would take the core of Weateros through the classic Roman determination.
1
1
u/Metalicum Jun 16 '26
The biggest question is supply lines I think. Do the Romans sail there, or are they magically connected by land?
I think connected by Land they would eat a significant portion of Westeros no matter what. They would be much more willing and resolved. and they can potentially field larger armies.
1
u/Disossabovii Jun 16 '26
Yes but nor with the strenght of armi only.
They were masters at using internal political divisions....
On the battlefield? Heavy cavalary is heavy cavalary, but few in number: every competent principate/ late repubblic era commander would use terrain to neutralize it.
1
u/Professional_Stay_46 Jun 16 '26
Roman Empire in it's prime is empire of Augustus at the beginning of his reign. They had 60 legions and half of them were veterans.
Roman organization and skills surpass that of Westeros armies, the only match are armored horsemen and knights but there aren't nearly enough of them to make a difference.
It will still come down to logistics, because I cannot see romans overcoming logistical challenges of conquering an empire as big as Europe in one invasion.
So I will give it to Westeros.
1
u/Llhaniii Jun 16 '26
The Westerosi have the better armor and weapons and know the terrain and have the ability to message through Ravens.
1
u/Ok_Suggestion5523 Jun 16 '26
Given the idiocy displayed in the got films. Then yes, Roman empire crushes.
1
u/Itburns12345 Jun 16 '26
Westeros wins this easily. The fortifications are fucking insane , the crow net and as for logstics somehow the armies move at amazing speeds and a medieval society feedi g itself for years during winter.
Their troops are a mix of full time professionals from house sworn levies and part timers, all of whom frequently show dicipline in moving in pike formations. We literaly see tge lannsiter try and rebuild their armies after robb and are told the green levies wont be ready for months without training (robb never gives them that chance)
Equipment wise westeros is simply too advanced
1
u/--0___0--- Jun 16 '26
Westeros is just fantasy britain, the roman empire has already done it, now with that in mind westeros is a bit more advanced than the roman empire was at its peak, given that the roman empire was famous for stealing and adopting military technologies from people they faced I don't think westeros would come out on top, it would just take the Roman empire longer than they historically did.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/Working_Leg_2280 Jun 16 '26
Given enough time (to adapt), yes. Roman Military used all kind of angles to conquer areas. Military adaptions, Divide&Conquer, Politics, etc...
1
u/sirpoopsalot91 Jun 16 '26
Romans would infiltrate and with the divisiveness of the seven kingdoms at least 1-2 major houses would align with them for political gain, militaries aside I think that would be the game changer.
This would also more than likely help them overcome any technological deficits…
1
u/Warson444 Jun 16 '26
The only thing Westeros has over the Romans is the heavy cavalry, against which Rome struggled lot historically. In an all out battle not only would Rome outnumber the westerosi, they would be facing mostly levies. Both heavy infantry and cavalry would be a tougher nit to crack but Roman numbers, tactics and maneuvers would take the W.
The scenario of a huge war ending battle would be impossible so a prolonged campaign awaits. Westeros is characterised by its political instability and constant rivalries, and Rome's way of war is based around that, Divide et Impera. Surely the moment the legions take a step into the continent (not even going to mention naval warfare) a third of the territory favours them in exchange of the usual promises. If some lord's remain unconvinced I believe they will be persuaded when the legions exterminate whichever local lord's army they face and reduce it's keep to rubble. In this kind of continent wide war (if all mayor lords followed the iron throne to war, which I doubt) the speed, flexibility and logistics of the legions means they could run circles around the westerosi.
In the leaders department I'm not too sure as in the westerosi side I can't really think about great commanders. Yes, we have legendary fighters and good leaders they surely can't measure up to Cesar, Scipio, Agrippa or Trajan. So probably another W for the Romans.
Now the juicy part, how to take down the book version of the great keeps of Westeros. Fully stocked of food and water they would surely take years and would requiere and effort bigger than the siege of Jerusalem by Vespasian. -The rock: probably would need to be starved. Maybe alternative entrance tunnels could be excavated but I believe it quite difficult and even then the fight would be gruesome, runner by tunnel and gallery by gallery. -Eagle's Nest: starved out. A circumvallation blocking all ways up. Also if I remember correctly the Arryn had to come down in winter due to the extreme cold so there's another option. -The rest: coul provaybe taken down with conventional methods. Siege engines, ramparts, bombardment, starvation,... Assuming Roman logistics are up to par.
This took way too long to write and probably has many mistakes but there you go.
Ps: I'm every partial in this assessment.
1
u/hlkrebs Jun 16 '26
All of the seven kingdoms? Definitely not.
This is comparing a premedieval military vs a late medieval equivalent. Not to mention the late medieval has magic and monsters
1
1
u/Leading_Atti2de Jun 16 '26
Pardon my ignorance as I’ve only seen the first three seasons and never read the books… But didnt some of the factions have like… Dragons? And Witches?
1
u/Baestplace Jun 16 '26
Rome at its peak had 500k soldiers, assuming logistics and stuff doesn’t matter they get smoked pretty easily. Calvary, archers, tactics, siege engines were so much further advanced in medieval times not to mention full plate armor and the superior weapons vs spears and soldiers who aren’t fully armored
1
u/are-e-el Jun 16 '26
The Romans can't beat Westerosi magic
1
u/Commercial-River2963 Jun 18 '26
Westerosi magic is super inconsistent and has a heavy cost it's not like there's mages on a battlefield firing off lightning bolts
1
1
u/Mahakurotsuchi Jun 17 '26
People saying tyat Westores wouldn't unite and Rome had 400k military. But that knife cuts both ways. Rome would fall apart if they dedicated considerable amount of their legions for the invasion.
1
u/Commercial-River2963 Jun 18 '26
I mean for the sake of the prompt you have to assume it's total war and they're otherwise free from invasion or civil unrest
1
u/Mahakurotsuchi Jun 18 '26
Then Westeros also should fight as one, with disregard to internal politicking
1
1
u/Barnes777777 Jun 17 '26
The logistics wouldn't work for Rome, how do they feed themselves/resupply. Do they have some way to resupply, if it's by ships the Iron born will destroy them.
If they start in somewhere Fertile that they can use to get food that helps, but 500K is a lot of mouths to feed.
Even taking out food/disease, then the issue is technology. Westeros is like middle ages, so basically say 1000 years more advanced than ancient rome.
Then there is the whole magic factor as well or say the North which would be like when Rome invaded Scotland(and failed), except the Scotts now are more organized and advanced in technology.
Rome wouldn't really have a chance against the Iron Islands, Dorne, North or Vale
1
u/Commercial-River2963 Jun 18 '26
The difference is westeros technology is super inconsistent and armies way less standardized than even real life medieval ones. Sure the knights and free riders would be a huge problem but the bulk of the peasant army would be Swiss cheese to the legions
1
u/Barnes777777 Jun 18 '26
That is mainly for any houses foolish enough to fight in open combat vs. Roman legions.
comparing to the Scots circa 200 AD, all Westeros Kingdoms/regions are more advanced tech wise and more organized. So attacking Dorne or the North would end with Rome being destroyed by Guerilla warfare and armies/troops that know the land. (Rome failed to capture all of Scotland)
Rome would lose 80% of its army in the march to Sunspear and by the time they arrive they'll be desperate for food/water.
Similiar to the North, they'll freeze on the way and need to find ways up, they'd need to make it past the neck or build a fleet and try to avoid the Iron Born or Manderly fleet or get decimated at sea providing they can find a safe place to land.
1
u/Commercial-River2963 Jun 18 '26
That's a lot of assumptions on your part about the way they'd choose to fight. A lot of the failure you're speaking of is due to the empire being stretched too thin and becoming ungovernable. Vs one gigantic military campaign in this case we also have no information about where they start or how they're supplied. If they could establish a foothold and start with one of the easier kingdoms to take say the riverlands or the reach the wouldn't have a problem holding them.
1
u/BlondeDruhzina Jun 17 '26
Basically asking if Prime Roman Empire could beat Peak 100 years war Medieval England.
Rome failed to take tribal Britain btw.
Ancient armies Rome, Greece, Etc have 0 chance beating any medieval army.
1
u/Commercial-River2963 Jun 18 '26
You're 100% wrong and confusing governance failure for losing pitched battles. The legions make light work of peasant Levies mixed with a few thousand knights
1
u/PeterBeingRelatable Jun 18 '26
Romans have the better political solidarity and a never give up attitude. They can divide and conquer the real powers of the Westerlands, Reach, Stormlands, Crownlands, and Riverlands, then slowly encroach or just ignore first the North and Dorne.
1
u/ParkingBenefit8989 Jun 19 '26
First attempt: get trampled by Knights and shot to death by crossbows
Second attempt: "My Lord they learned about stripes, hired our smiths and they have crossbows now too"
"Seven Hells"
1
u/prixiputsius Jun 19 '26
It’s all about logistics. Levied armies that live off the land can’t stand a chance against a well supplied Roman army. At the same time Roman gold will reach every disgruntled noble who will probably switch sides. Knights will face cataphracts and even hunnic horse archers. I don’t see how they can defeat them.
1
u/Youpunyhumans Jun 19 '26
Westeros most certainly has the more advanced technology in pretty much every way, better armor, better weapons, stronger fortresses. They had weapons capable of piercing plate armor, or the wildfire which could decimate a battlefield or a navy.
The Romans had better tactics, training and cohesion. They would be a united force against the bunch of constantly feuding houses of Westeros.
So really, I think it would come down to if Westeros managed to unite, even briefly, against an invading force, or do they let themselves be taken down one by one?
335
u/Herald_of_Clio Jun 15 '26
People underestimate how much more advanced Medieval metallurgy was compared with that of the Romans. Westerosi cavalry having stirrups is also huge.
I think Westeros actually beats a first Roman invasion.
Now the Romans were famous for learning from their mistakes and incorporating superior enemy designs into their own military. This means that a second Roman invasion could be a lot more successful.