Roman Legions vs Uruk Hai

[WNxHasoroth]

In this epic line up of man versus orc, Roman against pit spawned Uruk, who do you think would win? Assume that you have a full Roman legion (with attendant siege machines etc) versus an equal number of Uruk-Hai and siege machines.

My monies on the Uruks, bred for war, and its stated that a fully trained Rohirrim Horseman will always lose in a one on one sword fight with an Uruk. But considering a fully trained and armored legion of Roman Legionnaire's have been fighting for decades, and drilled to perfection, it begins to look dicey.

Note: Uruk Berserker's are here, but there are no explosive for them to detonate. Assume a ratio of 1 : 100 (1 being a berserker, 100 being normal Uruks)

[Turcano]

Why are siege engines included in this scenario? Use of siege engines in infantry battles is a classic case of Hollywood Tactics.

To answer your question, I'd give it to the legion. Discipline beats ferocity nine times out of ten.

[Emperor Ing]

presuming the Roman Legions arent fighting themselves of course...

I dont know who wins, I actually have the idea that they are ultimately evenly matched.

[shadowdemon_lord]

An individual legionnaire might get killed by an uruk hai. The phalanx of legionnaire's using shield wall tactics with tower shields and squadrons of archers who know exactly when to fire to inflict the most damage are going to be considerably tougher then a single legionnaire. When you compare a phalanx of legionnaires to the individualistic undisciplined fighting style of the uruk hai it ceases to be a comparison. The uruk hai will charge through archer fire, and upon reaching the legionnaire's will be met with a wall of steel with blades that point out of it. It'd be comparable to the battle of the 300 spartans against the hordes of persia. Except now the spartans have just as many guys as persia.

[WNxHasoroth]

Ooph was going to add a new post about terrain but you guys already posted haha.

Assume the field of battle looks something like this:



|-------------------------
| X X
|
| X X
|
| X X
|-------------------------

(the battle field is symmetric, two rows of hills on both sides)

With the X's being hills. Assuming that length wise you have a km's worth of distance, and height wise half a km how would that affect the battle?

As for the issue of siege engines, I'm presuming catapults and bolt throwers on each side, too destroy each other. Effectiveness against infantry is up to people who know this stuff.

[mainiac]

So very stacked in the romans favor as in, given even remotely even numbers (as in 5-1 in the uruk's favor.) and a competant roman general, the day probably goes to rome. Given even numbers and a good general, the romans wouldn't even take heavy casualties. Given one of the great roman generals leading veteren troops loyal to him, like Ceaser after his Gualic campaigns, I'd actually expect the romans to perform miracles and start wondering where to put the spread.

It's the roman shields, they utterly dominate a battlefield. Hold one in your hand at some point and you'll quickly understand. They offer enourmous protection and are even a good offensive weapon when used in the roman style. Throw in the roman armor, co-operation and flexible roman tactics and the uruk's are completely outclassed. And while legionaries can work side to side with other legionaries, uruk's have difficulty doing the same, since they can't swing their overcompensatingly large swords if there's a buddy in the way.

As for the better uruk strength and swordsmanship, all I have to say is "nyah." The various celtic, iberian and german people's produced warriors who were both stronger and more skilled then most roman legionaries. Didn't stop the romans from regularly stomping on them. The romans did lose battles, but typically under exceptional circumstance, like having their auxileries suddenly desert, getting cut off and ambushed all at once. Since you've laid out a fair fight, none of these seem in the cards. So the romans have nothing to worry about, this is the sort of fight their military culture was built from the ground up to handle.

[WNxHasoroth]

I do mean Saruman's Uruks. The ones marching in Phanlanxes, in crude but effective mass produced plate. The shields are not to be scoffed at either. Please note, I'm using the movie representation.

The Romans do get Cavalry, just so you know, but the Uruks get the full complement of combined arms, pike men, cross bows, etc.

[Narmoth]

I do mean Saruman's Uruks. The ones marching in Phanlanxes, in crude but effective mass produced plate. The shields are not to be scoffed at either. Please note, I'm using the movie representation.

The Romans do get Cavalry, just so you know, but the Uruks get the full complement of combined arms, pike men, cross bows, etc.

Since the uruks that marched in phalanx in the movie actually were made as a copy of the roman legions, you are then basically asking if humans or orcs would win in one to one combat only that both sides are a bit modified.

[Anteros]

Having actually studied roman warfare I'd have to say that the Romans would completely destroy the Uruk-Hai. (spelling?) In a situation of 5000 Romans against 25,000 uruk-hai, the Romans would suffer minimal losses.

[WNxHasoroth]

But whereas Roman Legions comprise of:

-Equites. Heavy armored cavalry with lances. 300 men
-Velites. Light infantry, skirmishers (javelins etc) 1200 men
-Hastai (900 men) and Principes (900 men). Heavy infantry armed with short swords and shields. 1800 men
-Triarri. Veteran Heavy infantry armed with spears. 900 men

Uruk Legions comprise of:

-Pikemen: Anti Cavalry 300 men
-Swordsmen: Long sword and board types. 2480
-Crossbow men: Fire pointy iron sticks 1380
-Berserkers: Don't fight inside the group but as skirmishers of death. 40

Based on that, now who do you think would win? The numbers Im using have been chosen to make it fair on both sides.

[Anteros]

But whereas Roman Legions comprise of:

-Equites. Heavy armored cavalry with lances. 300 men
-Velites. Light infantry, skirmishers (javelins etc) 1200 men
-Hastai (900 men) and Principes (900 men). Heavy infantry armed with short swords and shields. 1800 men
-Triarri. Veteran Heavy infantry armed with spears. 900 men

Uruk Legions comprise of:

-Pikemen: Anti Cavalry 300 men
-Swordsmen: Long sword and board types. 2480
-Crossbow men: Fire pointy iron sticks 1380
-Berserkers: Don't fight inside the group but as skirmishers of death. 40

Based on that, now who do you think would win? The numbers Im using have been chosen to make it fair on both sides.

People give alot of credit to the shield, but the real reason that Rome dominated was the Roman gladius which was only about a foot long. Armies that used longer swords were forced to space their troops farther apart in order to swing their swords. You cannot form a phalanx with longswords because you will injure the people next to you.
As a result battle lines will end up looking something like this...
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
The Romans have a much easier time making formations, and shield walls. In addition they can support one another much easier, and due to the required space gaps, each Uruk-hai would end up facing around 3 romans at a time.

If the Uruk-Hai were equipped with purely roman equipment they might stand a chance, but as they are not, the legion would easily destroy them.

[mainiac]

Why do the legions consist of republican era troops?

Well, I won't claim to be an expert on the merits of roman era equipment, but when a roman legionary reenactor let me play around with his shield (wow, that is so not dirty compared to let me play around with his gladius), I was really impressed by the great defense and offense it offered. And it's not like the romans only faced sword fighters. Legions trounced the phalanx who were likewise in close formation.

[warty goblin]

I like Roman armies as much as the next person, but they are totally overmatched by Uruk-hai.

-Uruks are very good at organizing tactical defenses. When ambushed by the Rohirrim in the book the Uruks, despite having run three days straight, still held formation and fought.

-They are damn fast. In the Lich King vs. Sauron thread I calculated that uruks could travel 70 miles a day. I think Roman Legions max out at about 25.

- They also can live in poor conditions on rotten food without suffering from disease, something Rome cannot do.

- Also if we are talking the movie versions, the Legion is screwed simply because a gladius is a horribly ineffective weapon against plate steel, its point is to wide to get through joints and burst chainmail, and its to light and short to be able to knock the target around inside their armor much.

- And just for the record, a Legion did not fight in a phalanx. They did fight in close formation, but a phalanx is a particular use of spears pioneered by the Greeks, which, at least by the later Republic, was very obsolete.

[Ditto]

Saying "Uruk > Man, therefore Team of Uruks > Team of Men" is a fallacy. A legion is more than the sum of its parts, and if the Uruks are supposed to beat the Roman legion just because it's based on it - but has not been drilled in its tactics and in any event are not suited to that kind of discipline - then they've got something else coming.

I'm not afraid of a squirrel, but I'd be terrified of a squirrel swarm - I don't care how many friends I have backing me up.

[Anteros]

I like Roman armies as much as the next person, but they are totally overmatched by Uruk-hai.

-They are damn fast. In the Lich King vs. Sauron thread I calculated that uruks could travel 70 miles a day. I think Roman Legions max out at about 25.

- They also can live in poor conditions on rotten food without suffering from disease, something Rome cannot do.

- Also if we are talking the movie versions, the Legion is screwed simply because a gladius is a horribly ineffective weapon against plate steel, its point is to wide to get through joints and burst chainmail, and its to light and short to be able to knock the target around inside their armor much.

- And just for the record, a Legion did not fight in a phalanx. They did fight in close formation, but a phalanx is a particular use of spears pioneered by the Greeks, which, at least by the later Republic, was very obsolete.

This is completely backwards. First of all, Rome did use a Phalanx, but evolved past its use to more advanced forms relatively early.

As far as marching distance goes, (not that it's even relevant to this discussion) Romans used to march around 20 miles a day, and then build a palisade

The ability to eat rotten food is also not very relevant as we're discussing a battle, not a seige.

As far as your point about the Gladius goes, it sure is a good thing the Romans never fought against any heavily armored opponents right? Cause otherwise that point would seem completely silly.

As far as the tactical defenses point goes...if you really insist stating that the Uruk=Hai were better tactically than the Roman frigging legion I'm afraid I can't take you very seriously.

[Satyr]

In an open battle where both armies meet on a flat plain, etc. the high standard of Roman equipment and teactical education is a major benefit - a disciplined shield wall can withstand a charging mob of angry orks.

On a tactical level, trhe roman army is superiour.

On a strategical level it's not. The supernatural endurance of the Uruk-Hai allos them to harass the romans day and night and to chose the battle field in their favors. The superiour night vision allows them to attack at darkness, negating most of the tactical advantages of the legions. And the ability to live on frugal dirt is also a geat advantage, because it makes the Uruk less dependant from their tross.

And it's obviously not impossible for some backwater barbarians to annihilate two or three roman legions.

[mainiac]

-Uruks are very good at organizing tactical defenses. When ambushed by the Rohirrim in the book the Uruks, despite having run three days straight, still held formation and fought.

Also if we are talking the movie versions, the Legion is screwed simply because a gladius is a horribly ineffective weapon against plate steel, its point is to wide to get through joints and burst chainmail, and its to light and short to be able to knock the target around inside their armor much.

The orcs did like three casualties before being completely wiped out. That's not exactly what I call a stellar defense. I'm not sayin' it proves their incompetant, what with the night attack and all, but it sure doesn't prove otherwise.

Well, if your going to talk armor, it should be noted that roman legionaries fought in the best armor available, either platemail or chainmail depending on availabitiy and preference. They're armor was competantly built as well and could stop pretty powerful attacks. There's no way the orcs could wear both platemail and chainmail. That's way too much weight, and even if it was made of mithral it would restrict your movement way too much unless you were on horses.

And in the comparrison of swords, keep in mind the romans chose those swords for a very good reason. Their shields ensured that any fight they were in would be very close combat. A long sword like the orcs use would be at a severe disadvantage because you can't swing it without completely exposing yourself.

[mainiac]

On a strategical level it's not. The supernatural endurance of the Uruk-Hai allos them to harass the romans day and night and to chose the battle field in their favors. The superiour night vision allows them to attack at darkness, negating most of the tactical advantages of the legions. And the ability to live on frugal dirt is also a geat advantage, because it makes the Uruk less dependant from their tross.

And it's obviously not impossible for some backwater barbarians to annihilate two or three roman legions.

On the strategic level, romans expected to be attacked constantly. They built forts every night while in dangerous territory. They wore armor constantly while marching and building said forts. It would take seconds to respond to a daytime attack, drop your pack and draw your sword. At nighttime it would take minutes, during which time their sentries and walls would keep them safe. It's hard to harass an enemy who's constantly ready for your attacks. Every time you attack, and lose, you have to reorganize. It's also hard to make an ambush when your talking armies instead of squads. Scouts and sentries didn't patrol for the exercise.

Incompetantly lead legions, severely outnumbered legions or legions in very unfortunate conditions did lose to barbarians but that's about it. By the time the empire fell to barbarians, there were no more legions, they were replaced by the limites, comites and feodorati.

[Satyr]

Incompetantly lead legions, severely outnumbered legions or legions in very unfortunate conditions did lose to barbarians but that's about it. By the time the empire fell to barbarians, there were no more legions, they were replaced by the limites, comites and feodorati.

Does "Propiorem iam albim quam rhemem" tell you anything? Back in Octavian's times, where the Roman Empire was at its zenite, some backwater barbarians annihilated three hole legions. XVII, XVIII and XIX cease to exist. The Roman armies were strong but far from unbeatable.

[JoseB]

Incompetantly lead legions, severely outnumbered legions or legions in very unfortunate conditions did lose to barbarians but that's about it. By the time the empire fell to barbarians, there were no more legions, they were replaced by the limites, comites and feodorati.

Does "Propiorem iam albim quam rhemem" tell you anything? Back in Octavian's times, where the Roman Empire was at its zenite, some backwater barbarians annihilated three hole legions. XVII, XVIII and XIX cease to exist. The Roman armies were strong but far from unbeatable.

As mainiac said, "in unfortunate conditions". The defeat in Teutoburger wald was in the middle of dense woods, where the legions could not manoeuvre (one of the worst kinds of terrain for legions to fight in, I would say), while lead by Varus, who was apparently not a really good leader.

The other big defeat before that was that of Crassus at the hands of the Parthians, far from home; here incompetent leadership was a (if not "the") big factor.

However, all in all, defeat for the Roman legions tended to be the exception rather than the rule. It tended to require a commander of real genius on the other side (e.g. Hannibal) or really bad luck for a big catastrophe to befall the Roman legion in its prime.

Just my 2 eurocent!

[Nerd-o-rama]

Seeing as the Uruk-Hai are exactly the kind of troops that Roman legions were used to demolishing (well-armed, physically imposing, but less disciplined and less favoring of formations), I'd have to hand an easy victory to the legions in open terrain like that described. Saruman would get much better results through manipulation, political trickery, or outright bribery.

[SmartAlec]

Back in Octavian's times, where the Roman Empire was at its zenite, some backwater barbarians annihilated three hole legions.

To be fair, the whole thing was also a gigantic double-cross. These backwater barbarians were led by a traitor with a Roman officer's military background, Arminius, who'd planned out the defeat of the three Legions well before Varus even knew he'd betrayed them.

[warty goblin]

I never said that Uruks are better at tactical maneurvering than the Legions, I just stated that they don't exactly break and charge like people claim. The Uruks, at least in the books, run a pretty competent army. They also can break shield walls, they broke the Rohirrim at the Fords of Isen, which is described as being basically a foot action.

I think the reason that the Rohirrim took so few loses attacking the orcs was that the orcs were strung out, tired, and not all of them were Uruk-Hai, and ran for it. They also wasted many of their arrows before their fight on hopeless long distance shots. The Uruks themselves maintained order and tried to cut their way through to Fangorn forest in formation.

Now since we are talking an army of only Uruks here, that breaking and running thing isn't a problem.

The armor thing is highly relevant. Yes, the Romans fought heavily armored people, but this was iron age armor, which IIRC tends to be made of chain and scale. Also, fully armored infantry (aka, complete body armor) was not something I think occured very often if at all in that time period. The Uruks in the movies wear what amounts to medival half armor with close basinets and chain protection for the joints. The typical way to kill somebody in armor like that with a sword generally involves either punching the crossguard of your sword through their visor, or stabbing through the chainmail under the armpit. The prefered way involved a charging warhorse and a lance, or a warhammer. As I said, Roman swords aren't designed to do this, and neither are their daggers.

Again, the food and speed issues are also highly relevant. Assuming a competant commander, which the Uruks seem to have, they can easily avoid engaging the slower Roman Legion in the field, until the health factor weighs in. No classical army was free from the risk of disease, although the Roman's superior hygene certainly helped them. Essentially the Uruks could pull a Julius Caesar, and simply march around until their enemies got very sick, then move in and rip them apart. Sure they are less relevant in a pitched battle, but the days and weeks leading to the fight are just as important as the fight itself often times, and discounting them is stupid.

On the tightly massed infantry thing. Yes, the Roman's shorter swords means that they can fit more men into a given area effectively, but it also has some disadvantages. Uruks are stronger than humans IIRC,and can probably win a shoving match against a human without difficulty, and hold two off with a shield as well. Put Uruks deep enough, say as deep as the Romans and give the front ranks large enough shields and they will be able to, if nothing else, hold the Roman line in place,even if they can't use their swords. Uruks also don't need swords to kill, being punched in the face by one wearing an iron gauntlet is lethal, and Romans wear open faced helmets. This still leaves a lot of Uruks not fighting in the main press for a flanking operation, which Hannibal taught us Legions are somewhat vulnerable to.

[mainiac]

Does "Propiorem iam albim quam rhemem" tell you anything? Back in Octavian's times, where the Roman Empire was at its zenite, some backwater barbarians annihilated three hole legions. XVII, XVIII and XIX cease to exist. The Roman armies were strong but far from unbeatable.

Yes, this was probably the worst defeat against barbarians during the period of the romans legions. It was also exceptionally unusual. To give you an example of the other end of the spectrum I offer the Battle of Wattling Street during the Boudican revolts. The romans were outnumbered 20 to 1 but tore their ennemies to pieces.

Warty, you can't make arguments about strategy if they don't fit into a larger picture. Seeing as the romans could easily best the orcs in the field, they could pretty much march unopposed into any territory they wanted, which would be a pretty damn good counter to the vaunted mobility of the orcs. And if there was anything like say a river the roman navy would quickly come into play. The romans were in fact damn impressive on the logistics front, they could move troops pretty much anywhere in the empire in a month. Looking at strategy in anything but a very abstract sense, these are all important.

And if you want to nitpick the roman equipment, I want to point out how absurd the level of equipment your giving the orcs is. The romans were able to equip their troops so well because they had a very small, proffessional force. Short of magically equiping the orcs, there is no way the orcs could have the sort of equipment you suggest and still use horde tactics.

The roman tactics are not so easily foiled as you suggest as well. This is the force that completely overwhelmed the known world. They fought vast numbers of wily and well equiped opponents. If you can think of it, they faced it from battleaxes to greek fire to elephants. Somewhere in the many hordes of barbarians they tore to pieces there were cores of elite warriors. These warriors would have high steel armor and weapons but still lost out to the romans. If fighting with broadswords and chainmail was better then roman tactics the romans would have copied said tactics because that's what they did when faced with superior techniques.

[Cuddly]

Why are siege engines included in this scenario? Use of siege engines in infantry battles is a classic case of Hollywood Tactics.

To answer your question, I'd give it to the legion. Discipline beats ferocity nine times out of ten.

Do you have a real link showing that catapults and stuff weren't used in battle?

[TheElfLord]

I never said that Uruks are better at tactical maneurvering than the Legions, I just stated that they don't exactly break and charge like people claim. The Uruks, at least in the books, run a pretty competent army. They also can break shield walls, they broke the Rohirrim at the Fords of Isen, which is described as being basically a foot action.

I think the reason that the Rohirrim took so few loses attacking the orcs was that the orcs were strung out, tired, and not all of them were Uruk-Hai, and ran for it. They also wasted many of their arrows before their fight on hopeless long distance shots. The Uruks themselves maintained order and tried to cut their way through to Fangorn forest in formation.

They did win the Second Battle of the Fords of Isen, but due to overwhelming numbers (at least 10 to 1) probably more. Even then, Unfinished Tales tells us that they suffered much heavier casulaties than the humans did. So even when they win, more urks die. And the men of Rohan were no legionares. They were trained as calvary fighting dismounted.

At Fangorn the orcs were not scattered. They had been surrounded on a hillside all together. They had hours to prepare defenses, and the battle was fought at night, which is the orc's prime opperating time. 80 urk s and over 120 other orcs were on the hill, plus an untold number hidden in the forrest waiting to attack. The orcs had some clear advantages and not only managed to lose horribly, but only kill 15 enimies, while they lost over 200.

Someone beat me to mentioning the Battle of Wattling Street, but I think its a prime example of why the Legions would kick butt.


And to the OP: Why use the movies? Why not use the true representation of what we are talking about instead?

[warty goblin]

Uruk-Hai don't use horde tactics. Orcs may, but Uruks most certainly do not- every depiction of them fighting in the book shows them to be highly organized and employing group tactics, supporting defensive measures. Even in the movies unless totally ambushed they use formations, covering fire and support units. They take mass losses at Helm's Deep because its a direct assault on a heavily fortified position, every army takes losses in a battle like that against a competent defender.

Yes, I realize that the level of equipment the uruks have is semi-insane, but the OP asked for a comparison based on the movies, and so that's what I work with, and in the movies they wear advanced fitted plate armor. Of course uruks also don't have to worry about an economy and mass-produce their equipment, but it is still a bit insane. Attacking it for insanity doesn't stop it from being true however, at least according to this thread.

Back to the stragetic thing: Yes Roman armies are fast, they go 25 miles a day, and relay at least somewhat on a network of roads. Uruks go 70 miles a day off road. Even if they chose to build fortifications, they could travel for twelve hours, go 48 miles, and still have six hours left to fortify. They can outdistance the Romans 2 to 1 and still be defended.

Another point, back to the close order fighting bit: Remember those big shields the Uruks used to get the ram up to the gate at Helm's Deep? Use a five deep line of uruks with those and the shorter cleaver type swords, or just spiked gauntlets. They will certainly be able to hold off their number of legionaries and then some, leaving the others free to flank and do the damage.

The Roman army is great. I'm not dissing Rome, believe me. I love Roman history etc, probably more than is healthy, the first computer game I ever played seriously was Caesar III. I read books on Roman history over breaks. Heck, my last paper for a modern political science class was on Rome, so I'm not just an LOTR fanboy, I'm also a Rome fanboy. In a modern American military vs. Roman military with equivilent equipment I'd hand it to Rome hands down. But here the Romans are out equiped, outmaneuvred, out muscled and barely have a tactical teamwork advantage. Now against the book Uruks and using equivilent equipment levels Rome wins, although it certainly knows its been in a fight, but the movie uruks are pretty insane.

[Dervag]

Why are siege engines included in this scenario? Use of siege engines in infantry battles is a classic case of Hollywood Tactics.

Actually, the Romans used siege engines in infantry battles on a number of occasions, and had engines specifically designed for this purpose (i.e., the pre-gunpowder equivalent of field artillery).

The reason was simple. Pre-gunpowder siege weapons couldn't cause many casualties to a force of infantry unless those infantry were tightly packed in a formation. In which case a shower of arrows or stones from a siege weapon could kill several, if not a dozen or more. So siege weapons, like normal ranged weapons, were could break up an enemy's formation as individual soldiers tried to dodge.

Having actually studied roman warfare I'd have to say that the Romans would completely destroy the Uruk-Hai. (spelling?) In a situation of 5000 Romans against 25,000 uruk-hai, the Romans would suffer minimal losses.

I think that's pushing it a little. The Uruk-hai would be better equipped than typical 'barbarians' the Romans fought, and remarkably resistant to injury, at least in the short term. There might be examples of a Roman legion beating 'barbarians' at five-to-one odds, but I suspect that in those cases most of the barbarians were relatively lightly equipped (little or no armor, little combat training).

Why do the legions consist of republican era troops?

I think because it's widely agreed that the legions reached their peak of quality during the Republic after the Marian reforms.

On a strategical level it's not. The supernatural endurance of the Uruk-Hai allos them to harass the romans day and night and to chose the battle field in their favors. The superiour night vision allows them to attack at darkness, negating most of the tactical advantages of the legions.

If you attack a legion at night, you're attacking them in a small fortress, because the legions built a fortified earthwork defensive ring around their camp every night. Yes, every night, at least until their discipline faded in the late Imperial period. Even in friendly territory.

Somewhere in the many hordes of barbarians they tore to pieces there were cores of elite warriors. These warriors would have high steel armor and weapons but still lost out to the romans. If fighting with broadswords and chainmail was better then roman tactics the romans would have copied said tactics because that's what they did when faced with superior techniques.

You're right, but it's reasonable to argue that fighting with broadword and mail (and perhaps some plate on top of the mail), combined with literally superhuman strength, endurance, and pain resistance, can make for a very formidable opponent. Even by the standards of a legionaire.

[Lorn]

People give alot of credit to the shield, but the real reason that Rome dominated was the Roman gladius which was only about a foot long. Armies that used longer swords were forced to space their troops farther apart in order to swing their swords. You cannot form a phalanx with longswords because you will injure the people next to you.

Uruks don't need swords - they have REALLY sharp teeth. One tries to tear someone's throat out in the movies, from what I remember. Plus, their shields are pretty sure - and take it from me (don't need proof, I AM proof) with a footlong blade, it's hard to be a suitably long distance that someone cannot in fact simply grab your wrist. And if that someone was a Uruk, you'd lose your hand, then everything else.

Plus, the fact that the Uruks can see in the dark can NOT be underestimated. Night attack, protracted combat, whatever, so long as they're fighting in the dark the Uruks have won.

Plus, the Uruks have fire arrows, which would probably be rather effective against a palisade/shield wall, and would, to be quite honest, be able to break straight through a shield wall. Hard enough to hold off normal humans if they're armoured, if they're stronger and faster it'd be even worse.

[EvilElitest]

In this epic line up of man versus orc, Roman against pit spawned Uruk, who do you think would win? Assume that you have a full Roman legion (with attendant siege machines etc) versus an equal number of Uruk-Hai and siege machines.

My monies on the Uruks, bred for war, and its stated that a fully trained Rohirrim Horseman will always lose in a one on one sword fight with an Uruk. But considering a fully trained and armored legion of Roman Legionnaire's have been fighting for decades, and drilled to perfection, it begins to look dicey.

Note: Uruk Berserker's are here, but there are no explosive for them to detonate. Assume a ratio of 1 : 100 (1 being a berserker, 100 being normal Uruks)

Movie or book Uruk hai? And what time peroid of rome? And how many of each side. And what emperor of the romans, and what leader of the uruks (sauron or Saurman)?
cool thread
from,
EE