In world history earlier this year, we discussed the Mongols and their incredibly mobile and deadly army. I, being the Roman history buff that I am made a kind of thoughtless claim that had say Caesar and Ghengis Khan coexisted the Romans would have easily won due to superior orginasation and technology. Not really knowing much about the Mongols, I realized that this claim really had no basis, so i was wondering what yall had to say on this hypothetical situation.

Oh no, not this again.

The Mongols, easily. While the Romans had faced and beaten steppe armies before, the Mongols were on a whole different level. They had excellent organization, coordination, and tactics, and nothing the Romans had could've kept them out.

The Mongols, they were great at tactics, had the ingenuity of the Chinese and etc. They would sweep the floors of the romans and be at Rome in weeks. Raids, hordes of arrows backed up with infantry and strong melee cavalry..what more could you ask?

While I think Rome would have the organization to sustain a larger empire, the Mongols were extremely effective at what they would do. I can't say I know too much about Mongolian history, but my gut feeling says that they would have won.

Mongols easily. There perhaps has been no other force on this planet as powerful or destructive as they were.

Genghis Khan lived a millenium after the Roman peak, and warfare has gotten a lot more complex by then. Of course he would win. To the average person, the weapons might look the same (primitive), but in fact they were very different.

Rome- the basics of everyhtign th emongols did not only had thier basis in antiquity, but were generally better executed in antiquity as well- the mongols had nothing the Romans hadnt seen tactically before, and had nothign surprising in terms of troops- they were huns on steriords- and even the late empire, fighting with a minorty of troops that bareally would have qualified as auxilla in the 3rd century, let alone as real troops in the 1st or 2nd centuries, a, dfightin gwith barbarian "allies" who didnt want to be thier, many of which wanted to join attailla outright was still able to secure for themselves an essential victory. (some will aergue it was a draw- but that isnt the case- the Roman coalition got all objectives it needed to meet in the battlefeild done- unfortunatelly, it cost Rome the last of its true Roman -and thus loyal- troops)

if th emongols went agiast a late 4th, or a 5th century army,t hen they woudl win- agiasnt a 3rd, 2nd, or 1st century army, Rome woudl mop the floor with mongol heads.

I like the romans best so I'll answer the romans. Not like any of us can make an accurate guess, anyway.

Asking the "Caesar Rome" vs. "Genghis Khan Mongol" would be almost like asking "von Schlieffen German" vs "George H.W. Bush America."

Guns: check
Tanks: check
plane: check
A lot of people: check

But we all know the answer now. Perhap in the year 3000 AD people will ask. Who would win? "von Schlieffen or George Bush?" because all our weapons would look the same to them.

It highly depends on the terrain and conditions as well. In various situations, the Romans would slaughter Genghis Khan. And in other situations, the exact opposite would happen.

Asking the "Caesar Rome" vs. "Genghis Khan Mongol" would be almost like asking "von Schlieffen German" vs "George H.W. Bush America."

Guns: check
Tanks: check
plane: check
A lot of people: check

But we all know the answer now. Perhap in the year 3000 AD people will ask. Who would win? "von Schlieffen or George Bush?" because all our weapons would look the same to them.

I realize that they were roughly 1500 years apart, and so im asknig you to suspend your belief and assume that technoligicaly they were on par.

It highly depends on the terrain and conditions as well. In various situations, the Romans would slaughter Genghis Khan. And in other situations, the exact opposite would happen.

Agree with you.
Btw, Roman met some armies not so different from Mongol one (Sarmatians, Huns, Alans; I know, not in Caesar's age, a bit later...); like Mongols, even Parthians/Persians had armies mostly cavalry-based: sometimes they won, other times Roma won... Mostly because of terrain (otherwise generals weren't so good...)

I realize that they were roughly 1500 years apart, and so im asknig you to suspend your belief and assume that technoligicaly they were on par.

Then it wouldn't really matter if it's the Romans vs the Mongols. You can ask "Who would win; The Romans or Americans from 2004?" if we are assuming that they are technologically equivalent.

Even if I wasn't a Mongol junkie I'd have to say the Mongols, at their best, under their best commanders, would more than likely have defeated the Romans at their best. But it's not really a fair comparison to make, given the Mongols have Chinese catapults and primitive "bombs" and extremely effective bows & arrows. You have to keep in mind they were separated by a millenium! Of course the Parthians did resemble the Mongols in certain aspects, and they beat the Romans but also were beaten by the Romans....

Then it wouldn't really matter if it's the Romans vs the Mongols. You can ask "Who would win; The Romans or Americans from 2004?" if we are assuming that they are technologically equivalent.

yoiu cant do that- Americans are the romans of 2004, and cfc dosetn generally liek asking "who woudl win" in various civil war scenarios ;)

Then it wouldn't really matter if it's the Romans vs the Mongols. You can ask "Who would win; The Romans or Americans from 2004?" if we are assuming that they are technologically equivalent.

I think the US woudl win. I base this claim on a 11 trillion dollar economy and 300 millon people. That and the US would likely have supperior logistics. We have people with PHDs in logistics and supply chain managment The Romans didn't. That and we'd probably have our NATO allies including Italy on our side so the Romans might have a tough time.
:D

I think the US woudl win. I base this claim on a 11 trillion dollar economy and 300 millon people. That and the US would likely have supperior logistics. We have people with PHDs in logistics and supply chain managment The Romans didn't. That and we'd probably have our NATO allies including Italy on our side so the Romans might have a tough time.
:D

assmume thta the Roman empire at its height is tranlated into modern economics, and technology; consider that even then, it had at least 200 million people within its borders, matching the population of china at that time- if such a trend continued, as it just might have if th epeace an dprosperity imposed by the empire ats height continued, that could very well equate into a Rome with a billion citizens in it, all spending money, and paying taxes, creating an enormus revenue upon which to draw upon.

Now equate further, that the Roman military was the most advanced of its day, at least in term sof logisitics, and orginization- the US might have people with PHD's in logisitcs and support- but for Rp,an sit was not a matter of study, it was amatter of actual life and death- and rather obviouslly, at its height, far more romans were livng then dyeing, so they were obviouslly getting things right, and seting about on putting a standard that hast really been matched to this day, except, interestinglly enough, by the United States-

consider- what the US hires private contractors to do,out of necessity (dont belive propganda, our military is in the sorryiest state it has eve rbeen in since before WWII, we only happen to have technology to counter act -some- of the defieicenies) the Roman military did of its own intiative

consider- the Roman military was almost a self-sufficient force; the empire provided the materials, the army then had specialist work those materials into armour, boots, swoards, and what not-( if legionaries wanted somthing fancy, they could pay for it themselves) wheres the US has to rely on not only private companies, that often charge far more then what is needed to create a product, and gain areasonable profit off it, but often has to turn ot other nation entrielly to provide the equipnment our own army needs.

Ebitdadada, i believe you just got dismissed by xen. that was very impressive xen :goodjob:

Rome- the basics of everyhtign th emongols did not only had thier basis in antiquity, but were generally better executed in antiquity as well- the mongols had nothing the Romans hadnt seen tactically before, and had nothign surprising in terms of troops- they were huns on steriords- and even the late empire, fighting with a minorty of troops that bareally would have qualified as auxilla in the 3rd century, let alone as real troops in the 1st or 2nd centuries, a, dfightin gwith barbarian "allies" who didnt want to be thier, many of which wanted to join attailla outright was still able to secure for themselves an essential victory. (some will aergue it was a draw- but that isnt the case- the Roman coalition got all objectives it needed to meet in the battlefeild done- unfortunatelly, it cost Rome the last of its true Roman -and thus loyal- troops)

if th emongols went agiast a late 4th, or a 5th century army,t hen they woudl win- agiasnt a 3rd, 2nd, or 1st century army, Rome woudl mop the floor with mongol heads.

The Mongols were nothing like the Huns. While they used the same basic unit of soldiery for their forces (light cavalry), they differed in tactics, organization, morale, and quality. Ghengis Khan was surrounded by steppe tribes like the Huns before he became a leader. The Mongols stood out by developing the tactics and organization that made them stand out from the others and brought them to victory. That's why the Mongols were able to campaign thousands of miles, while the Hun armies were in fact a loose confederation of Eastern European peoples led by Atilla's forces at their core.

To say every one of their tactics was known in antiquity is completely arrogant and ignorant of Mongol history. The armies of the Khans fought against all the biggest empires of the era, and won against all of them. They fought against other steppe cavalry, against the vast armies of China, against the Kwazarim Empire, against Russian boyars, Arabic and Persian armies, the Ottoman Empire, and German, Polish, and Hungarian Knights and won against all of them. That's a far greater variety of enemies encounted than Rome ever fought, and the Mongols campaigned through deserts, steppes, forests, and mountains, and sieged countless fortresses and cities throughout China, Central Asia, Persia, the Middle East, Russia, and eastern Europe. They invaded successfully invaded Russia mid-winter, a feat never replicated before or since, they circled entire mountain ranges in strategic-level flanking maneuevers, they coordinated armies hundreds of miles apart, they invaded (and defeated) Poland merely to secure a flank for the Hungarian invasion, they forged through mountains like the Carpathians, and the entire Caspian sea was circled and the lands along it conquered on a mere scouting expedition.

A Roman army would be mincemeat for the warriors that defeated the Manchus, the Chinese, the Koreans, the Burmese, the Afghanis, the Indians, the Tartars, the Khitans, the Kwarazim Turkomans, the Bulgars, the Cumans, the Russians, the Ottoman Turks, the Persians, the Arabs, the German Teutonic Knights, the Hungarians, and the Polish. The Romans at the time, the Byzantine Empire were scared spitless by the Mongols.

How exactly are we translating the powers here? Are we just comparing the relative power of rome at the time vs. the relative power of the US now? If we're ignoring the logistics that has developed over the ages, then we could ask the following question. "Who would win? The Romans or the first cavemen who discovered fire?" At the time they discover fire, those cavemen were the most powerful people on earth, so by direct translation, they'll beat Rome.

Ebitdadada, i believe you just got dismissed by xen. that was very impressive xen :goodjob:

Humn, if I was actualy serious in my post I might care. Thing is I dont't.
:D Basicly, my whole post there: Not Serious. Have a nice day though.

Which Romans?

If the professional armies of Rome (pre Augustus) the Romans easily.
If the Barbarian levees (after Augustus) the Mongols.

The Romans at the time, the Byzantine Empire were scared spitless by the Mongols.[/QUOTE]

Sure, they were afraid, did you seen the byzantine in that period, but i'm sure a army with basil II or belisarius with the same amount of soldiers like the monghols and i'm sure they have a good chance to win and even if they don't win, the Romans(byzantines) still would gave them a great battle.

Which Romans?

If the professional armies of Rome (pre Augustus) the Romans easily.
If the Barbarian levees (after Augustus) the Mongols.

you mean post dicletian- the army after augustus was hardley "barbartian levies'- it was anythign but, it was comprised of around 60% Itallans, well into the times of the empire, and it wa sonly at the end of the empire that native romans stopped joining in the army- it also when the army went into decline, after diocletian that is.

The Mongols were nothing like the Huns. While they used the same basic unit of soldiery for their forces (light cavalry), they differed in tactics, organization, morale, and quality. Ghengis Khan was surrounded by steppe tribes like the Huns before he became a leader. The Mongols stood out by developing the tactics and organization that made them stand out from the others and brought them to victory. That's why the Mongols were able to campaign thousands of miles, while the Hun armies were in fact a loose confederation of Eastern European peoples led by Atilla's forces at their core.[quote]

heh- the romans had the exact same factor son thier side- except they perfected them tot he point where they had a thousand year empire, and left a mark on the worl dthat has yet to deminish in anyway.

thier also the fact that, liek or not the Huns ARE a mellowe ddown version fo the mongols; and they still lost when put to the test agiast that las tthing that resemebles anythign liek even a contiegent of imperial roman auxilliaries, and the vast majority of thoise troops mind you, were on foot.

[quote]
To say every one of their tactics was known in antiquity is completely arrogant and ignorant of Mongol history. The armies of the Khans fought against all the biggest empires of the era, and won against all of them. They fought against other steppe cavalry, against the vast armies of China, against the Kwazarim Empire, against Russian boyars, Arabic and Persian armies, the Ottoman Empire, and German, Polish, and Hungarian Knights and won against all of them. That's a far greater variety of enemies encounted than Rome ever fought, and the Mongols campaigned through deserts, steppes, forests, and mountains, and sieged countless fortresses and cities throughout China, Central Asia, Persia, the Middle East, Russia, and eastern Europe. They invaded successfully invaded Russia mid-winter, a feat never replicated before or since, they circled entire mountain ranges in strategic-level flanking maneuevers, they coordinated armies hundreds of miles apart, they invaded (and defeated) Poland merely to secure a flank for the Hungarian invasion, they forged through mountains like the Carpathians, and the entire Caspian sea was circled and the lands along it conquered on a mere scouting expedition.


A)- every single one of those armies with the exception of china was utter crap by that point, and the chninese were weak and divided

B)the romans had skills in all of those exact feats and more; invading deserts in th emiddle of summer and winnign, wageing single cmapaigns across entire land masses, such as all of brtian at once, or the entire danube and rhien frontirs in a single year, all of it co-ordinated in a fashion that would make even modern tactician envious

C)the romans fought far more peoples then you are willing to recognize it seems- the carthgians, spainards, berbers, greeks, macedonains, dacians, gallics, germans, parthians, persians, judeans, thracians, armenians, skythians (amougst many other steppe tribes), arabs,goths, and even other roman armies all fought in different manners with different tactics, in different terrian, and yet the roman army preaviled over all of them.


A Roman army would be mincemeat for the warriors that defeated the Manchus, the Chinese, the Koreans, the Burmese, the Afghanis, the Indians, the Tartars, the Khitans, the Kwarazim Turkomans, the Bulgars, the Cumans, the Russians, the Ottoman Turks, the Persians, the Arabs, the German Teutonic Knights, the Hungarians, and the Polish. The Romans at the time, the Byzantine Empire were scared spitless by the Mongols.

A)hardly scarrd spitless- little known fact is that the Byzantien empire was allied to the golden hord

B)we're not talking byzantines- they were "roman" in name only, and even then , they calle dthemselves 'Romans" in the greek word ;)- I'm talking empire baby, the armies of Nerva and Trajan, armies that conqoured all in thier path, and were only stopped by the folly of Hadrian.

How exactly are we translating the powers here? Are we just comparing the relative power of rome at the time vs. the relative power of the US now? If we're ignoring the logistics that has developed over the ages, then we could ask the following question. "Who would win? The Romans or the first cavemen who discovered fire?" At the time they discover fire, those cavemen were the most powerful people on earth, so by direct translation, they'll beat Rome.

A)dont be stupid

B)I'm translateing power vgery simply- a strong rome over the ages negates most of the **** that will have happen din the wes tover the centuries, allowing for continued devleopment of resources, and a prevention to all those bloody wars, and because the Romans actually kept themselves clean, most plagues woudl be averted as well, leading to a higher population


C) a contiued rome from its height means a continued tradition of military innovation in tactics and equipment, and a continued tradition of keen logistical, tactical, and engineering skills that were a mianstay of Roman officer trianing since before gaius marius- even then, the roman smangaed ot pull out of thier asses feats that can be scarecelly duplicated today.

A)dont be stupid

B)I'm translateing power vgery simply- a strong rome over the ages negates most of the **** that will have happen din the wes tover the centuries, allowing for continued devleopment of resources, and a prevention to all those bloody wars, and because the Romans actually kept themselves clean, most plagues woudl be averted as well, leading to a higher population


C) a contiued rome from its height means a continued tradition of military innovation in tactics and equipment, and a continued tradition of keen logistical, tactical, and engineering skills that were a mianstay of Roman officer trianing since before gaius marius- even then, the roman smangaed ot pull out of thier asses feats that can be scarecelly duplicated today.

If you're going to use the hypothetical continued expansion Rome scenario to conclude that they would be a world power by today (which didn't happen), then I can equally use the hypothetical case to say that the cavemen who discovered fire would have lasers by 1st century (which also didn't happen).

The Romans were a powerful military force of its time and region, Yes. But they were not as invincible as you may want to think, at least they're not any more invincible than the US is today.

I don't know how you're picturing the battle scenarios. If you want everyone to just put on Roman uniforms, give the Romans a knowledge multiplier and fight the battles that the Romans fought then of course they would win. But if we get to use the knowledge gained about warfare throughout the ages, while the Romans kept what they had, even without superior weapon, modern men would win.

I hate it when these threads pop up... "who would win between a and b?" I have no doubt it would be the Mongols at any stage. The early legions I don't think were versatile enough (they certianly were versatile, but they couldn't do enough of everything needed to fight the Mongols), the mid-Imperial legions were always rebelling and so forth, and the late-Imperial legions were made up of barbarian tribes who would have held more alliegence to the Mongol Khan than the Roman emperor(s).

Oh, and BTW, the Byzantines did ally with the Golden Horde. They also allied with the Il-Khanate at one point. But the Byzantines certainly would not have wanted to fight the Mongols.

If you're going to use the hypothetical continued expansion Rome scenario to conclude that they would be a world power by today (which didn't happen), then I can equally use the hypothetical case to say that the cavemen who discovered fire would have lasers by 1st century (which also didn't happen).


The Romans were a powerful military force of its time and region, Yes. But they were not as invincible as you may want to think, at least they're not any more invincible than the US is today.
I've never claimed the Romans were incvincible, you just twist my (like so many others) words around to give you an adavncment in the argument- dont. I have claimed the the Romans had one of the bes tmilitaries, an dmilitary support practices that the world has ever seen, and that is the undeniable truth of the matter- combine this with the fact that the romans had planty of mistakes- and then proceede dot capitalize off them, and oyu have a very powerful little group of stratigiests indeed.


I don't know how you're picturing the battle scenarios. If you want everyone to just put on Roman uniforms, give the Romans a knowledge multiplier and fight the battles that the Romans fought then of course they would win. But if we get to use the knowledge gained about warfare throughout the ages, while the Romans kept what they had, even without superior weapon, modern men would win.

care to explain your point? its absured to picture just th ebattle in such a comparisonl, you have to compare every facet that oges into preperation for the battle, and ofcours,e we ample sources for the Romans, from history, and text works, and the US, from its current engagement in Iraq.

anyway, that not really the point of my argument agiast that quote above; I fial to see just how "modern men" (liek thier is any difference, were the same speacies, and have been for the past million years or so) would win; okay, lets say that oyu little scenario is put up, we send back modern soldires- any nation you want, take your pick, an dput them agiast the Roman army; they dont stand a ****ing chance- the majority of modern people have niether the nerve, nor the knowdlge to fight in a situation liek that, and I can say so for the vast lack of sparring partners I have encounterd over the past few years in my own wants to train with Roman equipment; modern genrals dont knwo how to deal witha situation where actions by 8 units squads dont cout for crap, and you have an ala of Roman medium cavalry bearing down upon your position at 30-40 miles and hour, and you didnt take a clue off braveheat to make some pikes for yourself.

now, lets put Rome into a future position; the Romans already showed, many, maby times that they woudl adapt to the situation as needed; thier legioanries are a combination of Spanish, Etrsucan, Celtic, and greek Influcnes, the only thing looslly roamn about them is the design fo the armor, and the exact specifacations of the helmet; when faced with a loos, they analyzed, looked for what wetn wrong, and where it went wrong, and proceeded to make what ever correction were needed to be successful , this wa son botht he tactical, and strategic leval, tot he leval of the individual trooper- comparitivlly, modern armies are remarkabley resistent to change in stratigies, and even the differtn arms of the American army disliek takign eachothers advice for hwo to deal with a situationm such as an incident a few motnhs ago where the marines were goign to repalce the army in soem duty or another, didnt listen tot he amries advice, and ended up in a good deal of marines getting killed.

Oh, and BTW, the Byzantines did ally with the Golden Horde. They also allied with the Il-Khanate at one point. But the Byzantines certainly would not have wanted to fight the Mongols.


read please ;)

The Golden Horde was quite hostile to the Ilkhanids, and maintained an alliance with the Genoese, Byzantines, and Mamlukes against them for a long time. The Khanate of the Crimea split off from the Golden Horde in 1430, becoming a vassal of Poland/Lithuania, and in 1475 a vassal of the Ottoman Turks; in 1502 it overthrew the Golden Horde

I have no doubt it would be the Mongols at any stage. The early legions I don't think were versatile enough (they certianly were versatile, but they couldn't do enough of everything needed to fight the Mongols), the mid-Imperial legions were always rebelling and so forth, and the late-Imperial legions were made up of barbarian tribes who would have held more alliegence to the Mongol Khan than the Roman emperor(s).


a)please define "everything needed to fight the Mongols"

b)the mid imperial armies were actually stunnign in thier effectivnes son the battlfeild- thier were so littl eof them, and yet they not onyl managed to hold together the empire, but reqonor two thirds of ti under aurelian 9which mind you, wasnt, IMO, a good thing- rome woudl have survive dot this day if he had let at least the 'gallic" empire (note it was gallic in nam eonly, they considered themselves the proud protectors of roman culture) survive, if not plamyra, inreturn for keepign the perisan in check- if th eempire was under political unity during this time, the world owudl be very different, as the mid imperial army was far ahea dof the curve, utlizing the stunnign legioaries of the early empire, witht he awesoem power of the cataphracts, and other types of horsemen of the later (eastern) empire, backed up by a bevy of specialty troops

gotta love the "rome vs anyone" threads. :crazyeye: < rushes off to open "rome vs rommels africa corp " thread >

Xen, yes. The Il-Khans and the Golden Horde were enemies. The Golden Horde hated the Il-Khans as they were in many ways upstarts. Kublai Khan had the il-Khanate created to balance of Golden Horde power, and he also gave them various lands (the most important of these were Tabriz) which the Golden Horde had previously held and wanted to continue doing so. So the Golden Horde allied with the neighbours of the Il-Khanate in preparation for a war. The Byzantines were part of this alliance, but after they realised it wasn't going to go anywhere, they briefly allied with the Il-Khans. That quote you gave was so brief that it could only give you a small glimpse of what really happened. It doesn't even focus on the alliance.

a)please define "everything needed to fight the Mongols"

b)the mid imperial armies were actually stunnign in thier effectivnes son the battlfeild- thier were so littl eof them, and yet they not onyl managed to hold together the empire, but reqonor two thirds of ti under aurelian 9which mind you, wasnt, IMO, a good thing- rome woudl have survive dot this day if he had let at least the 'gallic" empire (note it was gallic in nam eonly, they considered themselves the proud protectors of roman culture) survive, if not plamyra, inreturn for keepign the perisan in check- if th eempire was under political unity during this time, the world owudl be very different, as the mid imperial army was far ahea dof the curve, utlizing the stunnign legioaries of the early empire, witht he awesoem power of the cataphracts, and other types of horsemen of the later (eastern) empire, backed up by a bevy of specialty troops
What I meant about the early Imperial armies not being versatile enough, I should have probably said that they didn't excel enough in the various parts in the army. The legion really was forced into one style of battle, as opposed to the Mongols which had the ability to change tactics and use various contraptions. The early legion was good at taking out civilised lands which used phalanx warfare, or divided and warring tribes which used skirmish tactics, and it excelled in keeping it together. But the legions in this state were massacred by the Parthians, and the Mongols were far superior to the Parthians.

There is no doubting the skill of the middle Imperial legions, but they were not loyal at all. The Gallic Empire (and I thought about that primarily when I posted about the legions) rebelled and formed their own empire. Strangely enough, there is growing speculation that the last Gallic emperor actaully asked Aurelian to invade his empire, and that he may actually have helped plan the battles and so forth. Apparently the Gallic Empire also suffered the plague of the Roman Empire - rebelling legions - and so the emperor would rather have Aurelian invade than see his empire fall apart.

The Mongols would win, they were much more a self sufficient force then ANY Roman Army ever was. Their march across Asia is a testimony to that. Even though the Roman Army had specialists to build their weaponry, they needed supplies to build those weapons. The Mongolians made their own weapons out of wood and etc.

The Mongols would win, they were much more a self sufficient force then ANY Roman Army ever was. Their march across Asia is a testimony to that. Even though the Roman Army had specialists to build their weaponry, they needed supplies to build those weapons. The Mongolians made their own weapons out of wood and etc.

A)you onyl say the mongols would win because they beat you beloved china- they only beat china becaus eit was disunfied,corrupt, and weak at the time

B)The romans made some of thier stuff out of wood too. go figure.

C)part of Roman logistics was beign self suffiecient; they opted to forage formt he country side for what they needed, but carried stores of supplies, just in case

D)the mongol sneeded just, if not far more specialist then the Roman did to make thier equipment- while th emongols used chinese seigeworkers, and korean ship builders, the roman didnt have to look to conqoured peoples for such building skills- thier own officer core was required to have such knowldege- the only need Rome had for "other nations" peoples was as troop specialist for certain areas, and eventually that practiced died out, as auxill abecame a full integrate dpart of the Roman army, and was a style of fighting that was widelly used, and trianed for, by people from any par tof the empire, and ceased having to rely on local population soffer thier own local 'specialties' of war.

Xen, yes. The Il-Khans and the Golden Horde were enemies. The Golden Horde hated the Il-Khans as they were in many ways upstarts. Kublai Khan had the il-Khanate created to balance of Golden Horde power, and he also gave them various lands (the most important of these were Tabriz) which the Golden Horde had previously held and wanted to continue doing so. So the Golden Horde allied with the neighbours of the Il-Khanate in preparation for a war. The Byzantines were part of this alliance, but after they realised it wasn't going to go anywhere, they briefly allied with the Il-Khans. That quote you gave was so brief that it could only give you a small glimpse of what really happened. It doesn't even focus on the alliance.

perhaps, but I just wanted to jeer you a little bit- its not often we see each other these days :p


What I meant about the early Imperial armies not being versatile enough, I should have probably said that they didn't excel enough in the various parts in the army. The legion really was forced into one style of battle, as opposed to the Mongols which had the ability to change tactics and use various contraptions. The early legion was good at taking out civilised lands which used phalanx warfare, or divided and warring tribes which used skirmish tactics, and it excelled in keeping it together. But the legions in this state were massacred by the Parthians, and the Mongols were far superior to the Parthians.

thats rubbish, and you know it; after the augustian reforms- which mind you, paved the way for the era i'm talkign about the romans never agian suffered a defeat the likes of carrhae at the hand of the parthians - and indeed, i tbecame the avergae way to pull th eempire ourt of debt by invadeing P{arthia, defeating them in front of theit capital, loot the treasury, or just extort them, and then get the hell out as fast as they could get out- Trajan prooves very nicelly the versitility of the legions; too oftem, people think of a mass moving sheild wall- such wa snot the case at all, the Romans had onel one shild wall formation, and that was the famous turtle ;)

truth be told, the Roman swere successful becau eof thier troops versitility- fighting on almost every sort of terrian outside the arctic, and the jungles is clear testiment fo that, and the fact that the Romans were so eager, until thier economy collapsed, to adopt what every was needed to beat the enemy- war was a buisness ot the Romans, not osmthign to bne taken lightlly, and was somthign to be done professionlly, and effectivlly.


There is no doubting the skill of the middle Imperial legions, but they were not loyal at all. The Gallic Empire (and I thought about that primarily when I posted about the legions) rebelled and formed their own empire. Strangely enough, there is growing speculation that the last Gallic emperor actaully asked Aurelian to invade his empire, and that he may actually have helped plan the battles and so forth. Apparently the Gallic Empire also suffered the plague of the Roman Empire - rebelling legions - and so the emperor would rather have Aurelian invade than see his empire fall apart.

well, IMO, the legionsget the unfair blame- its thier commanders who area t fault here, after all ;)

I'll have to read intot he gallic empire debacle, i;ve read osme on what you have said, but to me it dosent make sense- the gallic empire had a very good track record, militairilly at least, and so if it emperor was fearing somthing, i think was sedition, rather then army rebellion.

either way, if we coudl have a battle between one mongol army, and one roman army, I'm tempted to say, very, very tempted to say that the middle roman legions under Aurelian would be the best option.

A) if you put it that way, you only say that the Mongols wouldn't beat your beloved Rome. And fyi Xen, you do understand that there was two dynasties at the time right? The Northern one fits ur description perfectly, but the southern one held out until Kublai Khan but mostly focused on the culture and economy.

B) The Roman Army, or the Legions were equipped with the gladius as their hand to hand combat i believe? And that they had iron armor and equipment addition... You can't find iron ore, smelt it, and turn it to weapons as easily as the Mongols can do that to trees and turn it into Bows and arrows.

C) And that is one of the weakness of the Roman Military, the baggage trains. The Mongols had no need for a baggage train, and would have easily destroyed the baggage trains with raids at night and etc.

D) Maybe those building skills the Romans had because they were a civilized people with large cities and they needed those skills? The Mongols don't have those since they're !) from the steppes, no need for ships 2) Warfare in Mongolia was mostly cavarly vs cavalry, there was no major cities why would the Mongols have those skills? The Mongols also gained troops from the conquered areas and used it in their armies. Having and needing "other nation's" peoples in their armies isn't a bad thing, it's a sign of trust and unity, plus the obvious statement that the were better. If we could do things better this way, why bother doing something worse with another way?

Mongols, without question. The Romans may win a battle or two, but they would not be able to win the war.

perhaps, but I just wanted to jeer you a little bit- its not often we see each other these days :p
I kinda guessed at that. I've gone back into lurking again.

thats rubbish, and you know it; after the augustian reforms- which mind you, paved the way for the era i'm talkign about the romans never agian suffered a defeat the likes of carrhae at the hand of the parthians - and indeed, i tbecame the avergae way to pull th eempire ourt of debt by invadeing P{arthia, defeating them in front of theit capital, loot the treasury, or just extort them, and then get the hell out as fast as they could get out- Trajan prooves very nicelly the versitility of the legions; too oftem, people think of a mass moving sheild wall- such wa snot the case at all, the Romans had onel one shild wall formation, and that was the famous turtle ;)

truth be told, the Roman swere successful becau eof thier troops versitility- fighting on almost every sort of terrian outside the arctic, and the jungles is clear testiment fo that, and the fact that the Romans were so eager, until thier economy collapsed, to adopt what every was needed to beat the enemy- war was a buisness ot the Romans, not osmthign to bne taken lightlly, and was somthign to be done professionlly, and effectivlly.
Actually, the Parthians did. After the enormously bungled invasion of Parthia by Crassus, the Parthians reestablished full control over their eastern border (the traditional threat region of Persia) and began a campaign against Rome. They allied with local legion commanders, and were widely supported by almost all peopled of the eastern provinces as the Romans had been real bastards. At one stage, the Parthians were at the Ionian coast and at the borders of Egypt. It was instability in the chain of the Parthian command which stopped them from holding these territories. Unfortunately, after this invasion, the Parthian Empire entered into another period of great instablitity (which ensued until the overthrow of the Parthians) and could no longer fight a decent war against a full-fledged empire like Rome or Kushan. I would use the post-Crassus campaign as a good example of what I meant, and would rather leave out the later period of Parthia.



well, IMO, the legionsget the unfair blame- its thier commanders who area t fault here, after all ;)

I'll have to read intot he gallic empire debacle, i;ve read osme on what you have said, but to me it dosent make sense- the gallic empire had a very good track record, militairilly at least, and so if it emperor was fearing somthing, i think was sedition, rather then army rebellion.

either way, if we coudl have a battle between one mongol army, and one roman army, I'm tempted to say, very, very tempted to say that the middle roman legions under Aurelian would be the best option.
The Gallic Empire was run by excellent military commanders. No one can doubt that. But when the founding emperor died, the rest of the emperors were not well-supported by the Gallic commanders. I think all of them were assassinated. The threat the emperor must have realised was that if his empire had such great commanders as it did, it would have fallen apart as each one would continue to fight against usurpers. Eventually, he must have thought, the Romans would just come back anyway. It's a lot of sense IMO that the Gallic Emperor did go to Aurelian to get him to invade. He would undoubtedly have been assassinated if he remained on the Gallic throne, and the Gallic Empire would just go to hell. At least he would have got a pension and a comfortable end to his life if he did what they say he did.

A) if you put it that way, you only say that the Mongols wouldn't beat your beloved Rome. And fyi Xen, you do understand that there was two dynasties at the time right? The Northern one fits ur description perfectly, but the southern one held out until Kublai Khan but mostly focused on the culture and economy.
Actually all three of the Chinese Empires were formidable. The Xi-Xia was undoubtedly the weakest, and Genghis Khan vassalised it early. The Xi-Xia though were dangerious vassals, and Genghis Khan eventually died on a campaign against them. The Jurchen Jin of the north were incredibly powerful, and are almost always considered the strongest of three at this time. The Jurchen army was enormous and comprised of skilled steppe cavalry and Chinese footsoldiers, backed up by skilled Chinese engineers and weapons (like the fire sabre, grenade, and cannon). The Southern Song empire was the richest and most populous of the empires, but the majority of the population were at this time followers of an extreme anti-war version of Confucianism.

B) The Roman Army, or the Legions were equipped with the gladius as their hand to hand combat i believe? And that they had iron armor and equipment addition... You can't find iron ore, smelt it, and turn it to weapons as easily as the Mongols can do that to trees and turn it into Bows and arrows.
Both the Mongols and the Romans equiped their soldiers for war. Scrounging for materials for weapons was not an important issue.

C) And that is one of the weakness of the Roman Military, the baggage trains. The Mongols had no need for a baggage train, and would have easily destroyed the baggage trains with raids at night and etc.
Yes, this is a good point. The Mongols had everything they needed on hand, whilst the Romans did so also, they had to haul it on baggage trains or on their backs. The supplies would have been an easy target for the Mongols, and the Romans might have had to abandon the campaign to get food if they were in an untamed region.

D) Maybe those building skills the Romans had because they were a civilized people with large cities and they needed those skills? The Mongols don't have those since they're !) from the steppes, no need for ships 2) Warfare in Mongolia was mostly cavarly vs cavalry, there was no major cities why would the Mongols have those skills? The Mongols also gained troops from the conquered areas and used it in their armies. Having and needing "other nation's" peoples in their armies isn't a bad thing, it's a sign of trust and unity, plus the obvious statement that the were better. If we could do things better this way, why bother doing something worse with another way?
The Mongols learnt how to perform sieges after the campaign against the Xi-Xia. After that, the Mongols were experts at it.

I've never claimed the Romans were incvincible, you just twist my (like so many others) words around to give you an adavncment in the argument- dont. I have claimed the the Romans had one of the bes tmilitaries, an dmilitary support practices that the world has ever seen, and that is the undeniable truth of the matter- combine this with the fact that the romans had planty of mistakes- and then proceede dot capitalize off them, and oyu have a very powerful little group of stratigiests indeed.

Ok, I'll give you that the Romans were the best at their time. But what you are claiming is that the Romans were the best beyond their time. The Romans were able to crush their military opponent in their time, but to say that they would be able to beat the most power military force from a 1000 years later is arrogant.

There is no doubt that you know a lot about Roman history and the strength of the Roman Army, but have you bother reading about the weakness of the Roman Army? Every army, every formation has a strength and a weakness and unless you know both, you won't be able to guarantee victory.

Here, we have a simple battlefield formation. 1) If you were the Mongols (blue) and have a birds eye view of the Roman formation (red), can you identify where the Romans are weak and how you might attack? 2) If you were the Romans and have a birds eye, what would you generally need to do as an effective defense? If you think that the Romans can't be broken in, in the first situation, fine, just replace the Romans with another army. This is more of a tactics test than anything else.

............

heh- the romans had the exact same factor son thier side- except they perfected them tot he point where they had a thousand year empire, and left a mark on the worl dthat has yet to deminish in anyway.

thier also the fact that, liek or not the Huns ARE a mellowe ddown version fo the mongols; and they still lost when put to the test agiast that las tthing that resemebles anythign liek even a contiegent of imperial roman auxilliaries, and the vast majority of thoise troops mind you, were on foot.


If the Huns are a mellowed down version of Mongols, then Romans are simply Greeks on steroids. The conquest of Greece and the Punic Wars were done with what amounted to Greek-style Hoplites, long before the Marian reforms created the professional legionary army. The difference being in tactics and organization, of course. Shall I form all my arguments on the basis they would have fought like Greeks, then?

By the way, much of the Huns were on foot, too. Atilla was a few generation after their migration into Europe, and the Hungarian plain was nowhere enough to support the kind of horse armies the Mongols fielded. By the time they fought against Rome, the Huns were a sedentary people. The "Hunnic" army was a loose confederation of many Eastern Europian barbarian tribes that were tributary states, allies, or vassals of Atilla. The Mongol armies, on the other hand would be almost all cavalry, and all directly controlled by the general himself, with a tight and organized chain of command where maneuvers would be coordinated with banners and horns, unlike the Hun armies where local groups were led by tribal chiefs of doubtful quality.

Any Roman auxilia would have been cannon fodder for the Mongols. We're talking about Mongols armed with bows that outranged and outpowered even English longbows (~130-150 lb draw weight vs 70-90 lb draw weight). The Roman cavalry came before the introduction of the stirrup to Europe, which the Mongols had. Without a stirrup, the Roman auxillia aren't going to be able to put effective weight onto their charge, and would be at a disadvantage while fighting on horseback.

The Romans were never known for the quality of their cavalry, and the Mongols went up against nations fielding far superior cavalry of numerous types. Among these were the Knights of Poland, Teutonic Order, and Hungary, the cataphracts of Anatolia and central Asia and probably Persia, other steppe peoples, including Turks, Tartars, and other Mongols, horse based cultures like the Jurchens (precursors to the Manchus and efficient empire builders in their own right), and the Arab/Mameluke cavalries in Iraq and Syria. Now, many of these empires were known and reknown for the quality of their cavalry, while Rome wasn't. Roman cavalry was usually light, and morale wasn't great, either. Roman cavalry fleeing contibuted to decisive losses like Cannae and Adrianople. The Roman record against forces were superior cavalry isn't that great, either. Every time the Romans came up against armies equipped with superior cavalry, they loss. See: Gothic knights, battle of Cannae, Persians, Parthians, Sarmations, Seljuk Turks, Arab and Islamic invasion, Ottoman Empire.

In short, the Mongols wouldn't even sneeze at Roman cavalry. Once the cavalry was taken care of, the infantry would be toast. Heavy infantry on foot isn't going to be able to catch up to light cavalry on horse, and light cavalry will easily surround it and shower the Romans with arrows. Testudo formation, you say? Very well, but we're talking about a bow with greater draw weight than the English longbow, which itself had the ability to penetrate the armor worn by European knights. FURTHERMORE, the testudo basically can't do anything but sit there, as they'll never catch up to Mongols on horse. The testudo defence basically means a day of standing in the sun in metal armor, holding up a 10-ld shield, carrying 60 lbs of equipment and armor, and having to stay in a tight formation which makes for an impossible-to-miss target constantly being showered by arrows. That's basically what happened to Crassus's armies versus the Parthians at the Battle of Carrhae.

Manuever-wise, the Mongols also have the advantage. Should the Romans choose to simply fortify and encamp, the Mongols can simply pin them down with some force, and use their speed in advantage to attack their logistics. As formidable as any army can be, they can't fight without food. The speed of the Mongols mean they have freedom of maneuever, allowing them to fight on terms only advantageous to them, bypass armies and fortifications as they please, and loot and rape Roman towns. Remember, the Mongol modus operandi was "wipe them out, all of them", leaving alive only skilled craftsmen and potential human shields. The Mongols themselves had no logistics line to attack, since they carried everything on their horses, including their dismantled siege engines, and they feed off their horses when necessary, drinking mare's milk and horse blood.

Siege wise, Mongols win. Roman siege engines are irrelevent here, since the Mongols don't have any cities to siege. Any cities they capture would be looted, sacked, and burned down, with its inhabitants killed. The Mongols existed a thousand years after the Romans, and they had everything the Romans had, plus more. They had siege engines and engineers from China, Central Asia, and the Middle East, plus they had cannon, gunpowder, and fireworks, something the Romans didn't have. City walls in Song and later dynasties were designed to stand up against cannon and gunpowder, being thickened and reinforced, while pre-gunpowder era walls weren't and Roman fortifications existed before even the fortification advances of the Middle Ages, meaning they wouldn't stand a chance against Mongol siege expertise. We saw how well Constantinople's famed walls stood up against Mehmet's cannon (which is to say, they didn't) over a thousand years after the Roman legions in their heyday.

A)- every single one of those armies with the exception of china was utter crap by that point, and the chninese were weak and divided

B)the romans had skills in all of those exact feats and more; invading deserts in th emiddle of summer and winnign, wageing single cmapaigns across entire land masses, such as all of brtian at once, or the entire danube and rhien frontirs in a single year, all of it co-ordinated in a fashion that would make even modern tactician envious

C)the romans fought far more peoples then you are willing to recognize it seems- the carthgians, spainards, berbers, greeks, macedonains, dacians, gallics, germans, parthians, persians, judeans, thracians, armenians, skythians (amougst many other steppe tribes), arabs,goths, and even other roman armies all fought in different manners with different tactics, in different terrian, and yet the roman army preaviled over all of them.

A)hardly scarrd spitless- little known fact is that the Byzantien empire was allied to the golden hord

B)we're not talking byzantines- they were "roman" in name only, and even then , they calle dthemselves 'Romans" in the greek word ;)- I'm talking empire baby, the armies of Nerva and Trajan, armies that conqoured all in thier path, and were only stopped by the folly of Hadrian.

The armies the Mongols fought against were hardly utter crap. The Mongols fought armies of millions (Song China even in its fractured state) with forces against consisting of hundreds of thousands. It defeated the Kwarazim empire, 4th largest empire, in a single campaign.

If you're going to use the "weak and divided" argument against the Mongols, I'm certainly going to use it against the Romans. Guess what? The Gauls, the Germans, the Greeks, the British tribes, the Picts, Ptolemaic Egypt, the Seluecids and even the Carthinians were weak and divided. The Germans very rarely unified, and the only time the Gauls unified was under Vergintorix, who only managed at the last minute, which was too late. The Greeks were divided up into small leagues and city states, while the latter suffered from civil war and/or disunity. The Mongols fought against empires with strong centralized governments and huge standing armies while the Romans fought against fractured tribes and small kingdoms.

The Romans fought on a far-smaller scale than did the Mongols. Britain being an entire landmass? Ghengiz Khan, fought in China in one campaign, while two of his generals destroyed the central Asian empire of Kwarazim (4th largest in the world at the time) simultaneously, chasing the shah all the way into India, then Ghengiz took time off of China to launch an invasion of Russia, while a subforce goes on a scouting expedition around the Caspian Sea (conquering everything in the Caucasus while at it), and then runs on back to China for more campaigning. By the way, Ghengiz Khan started out with maybe 100 or so troops and fought for everything else he had. Now that's a man's man. The Romans didn't even control all of Britain, while the the Mongols campagained across continents.

By the time of Ghengiz's death the Mongols were manuevering forces in different continents simultaneously. While Monke was invading Song China, Halagu was busy conquering Persia, while the Subudai launched his invasion of Russia and Europe. To get an idea of the scale of manuever, Subudai launched his invasion of Hungary in mid-winter across the Carpathian mountain range. Meanwhile, two flanking armies were sent to encircle the Carpathians from the north and south side. At the same time, a smaller army was sent even further north to conquer Poland to secure the flanks on an even larger scale. Using the Romans as comparison to Mongol speed, versatility, and efficiency at campaigning is laughable. The Mongols were the fastest moving land-army in the world and in history, until the 20th century when armies were motorized.

BTW, I knew about the little tidbit with the Byzantine Empire. Because the Mongols were tolerant of Christians, the European Christians thought the Mongols were their savior from the Muslims and attempted to negotiate an alliance with the Mongols. The Byzantine scared spitless part was after the Mongols came into the Mideast and Anatolia and started their typical massacres and they were marching in against the Ottomans.

If the Huns are a mellowed down version of Mongols, then Romans are simply Greeks on steroids. The conquest of Greece and the Punic Wars were done with what amounted to Greek-style Hoplites, long before the Marian reforms created the professional legionary army. The difference being in tactics and organization, of course. Shall I form all my arguments on the basis they would have fought like Greeks, then?

well, first your going to have to back up that statment- as even in the time of the punic wars, the Romans were no longer using phalanx formations, and were relyting on a combination of light/medium infantry armed with swords and javlins, backed up by rather scanti numbers of real, hardcore spearmen- totally different from the greek style of fighting, as you should well recall


By the way, much of the Huns were on foot, too. Atilla was a few generation after their migration into Europe, and the Hungarian plain was nowhere enough to support the kind of horse armies the Mongols fielded. By the time they fought against Rome, the Huns were a sedentary people. The "Hunnic" army was a loose confederation of many Eastern Europian barbarian tribes that were tributary states, allies, or vassals of Atilla. The Mongol armies, on the other hand would be almost all cavalry, and all directly controlled by the general himself, with a tight and organized chain of command where maneuvers would be coordinated with banners and horns, unlike the Hun armies where local groups were led by tribal chiefs of doubtful quality.
A)the Huns still had a huge warrior ethos, and by the time fo attilla, were still more the cabalble fo defeating various othe rpeople who had been giving the late Romans quite a bit of trouble, though in turn, weres till defeated by the last scrap of the roman army, which was a huge infantry contigent for the most part, and didnt even make up a full half or perhaps even a third of the total allied troops to fight the huns.

however, it its cavalry armies you want, you need look no further then the various SKythia, bosporand, and sub brreds of the two wars, as well as the wars with Parthia and the neo-persian empire to see that Rome could make itself a very capable warrior agiast even bow weilding mounted opponents.


Any Roman auxilia would have been cannon fodder for the Mongols. We're talking about Mongols armed with bows that outranged and outpowered even English longbows (~130-150 lb draw weight vs 70-90 lb draw weight). The Roman cavalry came before the introduction of the stirrup to Europe, which the Mongols had. Without a stirrup, the Roman auxillia aren't going to be able to put effective weight onto their charge, and would be at a disadvantage while fighting on horseback.
individual equipment dosent matter, that simple- even formatiopnal equipment only modifies soem thing but not all of it- a bow twice that distance isnt goign to help when you being flanked on two sides by two roman cavalry alas- that said, the though that stirrups do anything is complete bull****- i dotn ride horses, but I know people who do, and ive read the testimonies, and people honestlly say that stirrups dont go for anything when making for a 'firmer" charge- its just easyer yo learn how to ride with them.


The Romans were never known for the quality of their cavalry, and the Mongols went up against nations fielding far superior cavalry of numerous types. Among these were the Knights of Poland, Teutonic Order, and Hungary, the cataphracts of Anatolia and central Asia and probably Persia, other steppe peoples, including Turks, Tartars, and other Mongols, horse based cultures like the Jurchens (precursors to the Manchus and efficient empire builders in their own right), and the Arab/Mameluke cavalries in Iraq and Syria. Now, many of these empires were known and reknown for the quality of their cavalry, while Rome wasn't. Roman cavalry was usually light, and morale wasn't great, either. Roman cavalry fleeing contibuted to decisive losses like Cannae and Adrianople. The Roman record against forces were superior cavalry isn't that great, either. Every time the Romans came up against armies equipped with superior cavalry, they loss. See: Gothic knights, battle of Cannae, Persians, Parthians, Sarmations, Seljuk Turks, Arab and Islamic invasion, Ottoman Empire.
A)firstlly, you shoudl change your opeing to that YOU have never know the Romans for thier quality of cavalry- I can assure you that I have known of its quality, and its very evident, particuler when you go over the reconqoest of the west by belisarius who was using late Roman cataphracts

B)" Roman cavalry was usually light, and morale wasn't great, either." if you want to liit your armies to thos ebefore the marian reforms, youd be right- but I'm no tonoly talkign post marian reforms, i'm talkign post Augustian as well, when Rome had formmed a fully equipped, well trianed fightign force of cavalry, that was able to root all other cavalry oppoentns whil;e it was fiedled- every culture that used horses as either the sole point, or the lynch pin of its tacts was routed by post augustan, pre-diocletian reform armies

C)Roman cavalry fleeing contibuted to decisive losses like Cannae and Adrianople. The Roman record against forces were superior cavalry isn't that great, either. Every time the Romans came up against armies equipped with superior cavalry, they loss. See: Gothic knights, battle of Cannae, Persians, Parthians, Sarmations, Seljuk Turks, Arab and Islamic invasion, Ottoman Empire.

obviouslly, canna happens far before the augustian reforms, adn adrianople happens well the diocletian reforms- and neither fo which cover the actual era of armies of saying that Rome coudl win with- you need to find actual expamples of a high or mid imperial army beign trashed by cavalry to have a point- but then you not going to find an example of that, but at that time Rome wielded a well balenced, well equipped, well drilled, and professional army, that crushed everythign in its path, includign itself on more then one occasion


In short, the Mongols wouldn't even sneeze at Roman cavalry. Once the cavalry was taken care of, the infantry would be toast. Heavy infantry on foot isn't going to be able to catch up to light cavalry on horse, and light cavalry will easily surround it and shower the Romans with arrows. Testudo formation, you say? Very well, but we're talking about a bow with greater draw weight than the English longbow, which itself had the ability to penetrate the armor worn by European knights. FURTHERMORE, the testudo basically can't do anything but sit there, as they'll never catch up to Mongols on horse. The testudo defence basically means a day of standing in the sun in metal armor, holding up a 10-ld shield, carrying 60 lbs of equipment and armor, and having to stay in a tight formation which makes for an impossible-to-miss target constantly being showered by arrows. That's basically what happened to Crassus's armies versus the Parthians at the Battle of Carrhae.
A)once agian, the imeprial army istn the army that was trashed at carrhae, and it wasnt the army that was trashed at adrianople

B)the romans didnt "rely" on infantry, just liek they didnt "rely" on cavarly in the era I'm tlakign about- thewy tended to get lavish off battlefeild attention, but on the battlefeild, the Commanders utlized both however they were needed to ensure victory- the simple materilization of the cataphract, and heavy horsement that in its day could multi -role, and on many occasion in th ebelisarian camapign, amoung others, were the the only troops involved ina battle agiasnt superior numbers of the oppoent, and still won;you can possibley say the the Roman had no cavalry, or crappy cavalry- ti dosetn cut it.

C)If you think that the Romans fough tliek european knights, then you have no buisness int he thread, if you think that equipment is the soel factor of war, then you have no buisness in this thread- it equipment was the sole factor in war, then iraq qould be won by now, but rathe robviouslly it istn.

D)your also forgettign the other important faros of a well balenced and happy Roman army, the light cavalry, rangerd troops, and feild artillery peices.


Manuever-wise, the Mongols also have the advantage. Should the Romans choose to simply fortify and encamp, the Mongols can simply pin them down with some force, and use their speed in advantage to attack their logistics. As formidable as any army can be, they can't fight without food. The speed of the Mongols mean they have freedom of maneuever, allowing them to fight on terms only advantageous to them, bypass armies and fortifications as they please, and loot and rape Roman towns. Remember, the Mongol modus operandi was "wipe them out, all of them", leaving alive only skilled craftsmen and potential human shields. The Mongols themselves had no logistics line to attack, since they carried everything on their horses, including their dismantled siege engines, and they feed off their horses when necessary, drinking mare's milk and horse blood.

A)where talkign not about the armies of Rome I;ve choosen here, and your forgettign a keen fac to Roman histopry for that period- the Romans didnt fight on thier own ground, they met the enemy head on- the mongols would be able to "sack and rape" any Roman town because the Romans themselves wouldnt be in thier own empire.

B)you say freedom to manuver? I say poppy cock- didnt hep the ostrogoths when they attmepted to seige rome when belisarius had retaken it- the biggest bithc to anyone actually tryign to sige a roman army is the fact that they too, carried all thier **** with them, and so could survive for extended periods of time on thier own supplies, untila relife force would come, or they themselves defeated the enemy

C)the Mogol modus operandi could have been "wipe thier ass, all of it" and it wouldnt really matter, as you seem to be forgetting that while the Romans often wer eleient to local populations, they were also not afraid to give into bloodlust, and kill everyobne, potential meat sheilds and workers included- the Romans were troops trianed to kill thier own brothers in arms if they so had too, you should well remember that when thinking of whom had more nerve

D)your point also brings forward another strong point for rome- the fact that they didnt just send one army to tdo the job, as they were firm beliver sint he term "overkill", and often sent three armies to go out, and do what was needed; okay, so your mongols pin down the intial army- the other two now learn a bastion of Mongol tactics, and prepare for it, and possible even leade a counte rmarch to relive army 1's position


Siege wise, Mongols win. Roman siege engines are irrelevent here, since the Mongols don't have any cities to siege. Any cities they capture would be looted, sacked, and burned down, with its inhabitants killed. The Mongols existed a thousand years after the Romans, and they had everything the Romans had, plus more. They had siege engines and engineers from China, Central Asia, and the Middle East, plus they had cannon, gunpowder, and fireworks, something the Romans didn't have. City walls in Song and later dynasties were designed to stand up against cannon and gunpowder, being thickened and reinforced, while pre-gunpowder era walls weren't and Roman fortifications existed before even the fortification advances of the Middle Ages, meaning they wouldn't stand a chance against Mongol siege expertise. We saw how well Constantinople's famed walls stood up against Mehmet's cannon (which is to say, they didn't) over a thousand years after the Roman legions in their heyday.

A)someone seems to be forgetting that the walls of constantinople. built by late romans, and without the advatages of rome concrete was still able to hold up agiast guns and gun powder, arnt they

B)obviosully, that just underlines the fact that Roman cities were infact often guarded by a concrete wall, and the reason that in the late empire so many wer epillaged istn because the walls fialed, its because the late ropman army was crap, and defeate din feild battlels, and left no troops for city defense

C)actually, if anything, its the Romans whom have the seige engine advatage- not because th emongol have cities to seige, because the Romans always enjoyed giving thier enemy the tasty surprise of having to deal with such artiller fire on thier own ranks of troops; I ask just how many times did the mongols come under masser artillery fire under thier campaigns, anyway?



The armies the Mongols fought against were hardly utter crap. The Mongols fought armies of millions (Song China even in its fractured state) with forces against consisting of hundreds of thousands. It defeated the Kwarazim empire, 4th largest empire, in a single campaign.

big empires dont mean big armies, and more over big armies dont mean good armies; agian the modern world is a picture perfect case, with N. Korea having the largest army in the world, the US military tiny compared to it; but in regule rmilitary engagements, the US army wins handsdown; the smae applies for all eras mind you- war is often a game of knowldge and tactics, somthign the Romans excelled at- the mongols were no one to cough at with it, but a thousand year empire tends to be fairlly tellign about how good, on average, Roman tacticians were, and what king of wisdom they could draw upon


If you're going to use the "weak and divided" argument against the Mongols, I'm certainly going to use it against the Romans. Guess what? The Gauls, the Germans, the Greeks, the British tribes, the Picts, Ptolemaic Egypt, the Seluecids and even the Carthinians were weak and divided. The Germans very rarely unified, and the only time the Gauls unified was under Vergintorix, who only managed at the last minute, which was too late. The Greeks were divided up into small leagues and city states, while the latter suffered from civil war and/or disunity. The Mongols fought against empires with strong centralized governments and huge standing armies while the Romans fought against fractured tribes and small kingdoms.

the Carthaginains werre harldey devided- the same goes for the macedonians, parthians, persians, select peiods in Iberian history, numdians, nor most steep armies that Rome faced were actually divdided, and yet rome managed to whoop thier asses- amazinglly enough, almost all those armies utilize cavalry that migt be considered 'superior" to what the romans sported as well

The Romans fought on a far-smaller scale than did the Mongols. Britain being an entire landmass? Ghengiz Khan, fought in China in one campaign, while two of his generals destroyed the central Asian empire of Kwarazim (4th largest in the world at the time) simultaneously, chasing the shah all the way into India, then Ghengiz took time off of China to launch an invasion of Russia, while a subforce goes on a scouting expedition around the Caspian Sea (conquering everything in the Caucasus while at it), and then runs on back to China for more campaigning. By the way, Ghengiz Khan started out with maybe 100 or so troops and fought for everything else he had. Now that's a man's man. The Romans didn't even control all of Britain, while the the Mongols campagained across continents.
A)your obviouslly not famillear with the lightning campaigns of vespasian in britian, but I'll let you go read up on him

B)no where near on what the nongols fought? then how do you gall conqoured conaouring all gual on a single huge campaign simple- or more impresisllvy, conqouring all mesoptamia in one go under Trajan, or how about Dacia, or Numdia? the Romans have just as many expamples of of feild large forces on mass excerison of conqourest into enemy territoy and coming back victiours on thier intial campaign as the mongols do, perhaps more so given roes fgar longer history


By the time of Ghengiz's death the Mongols were manuevering forces in different continents simultaneously. While Monke was invading Song China, Halagu was busy conquering Persia, while the Subudai launched his invasion of Russia and Europe. To get an idea of the scale of manuever, Subudai launched his invasion of Hungary in mid-winter across the Carpathian mountain range. Meanwhile, two flanking armies were sent to encircle the Carpathians from the north and south side. At the same time, a smaller army was sent even further north to conquer Poland to secure the flanks on an even larger scale. Using the Romans as comparison to Mongol speed, versatility, and efficiency at campaigning is laughable. The Mongols were the fastest moving land-army in the world and in history, until the 20th century when armies were motorized.
interstinglly enough, the Roman, and go figure thius, as it shoudl obviosully be impossibel since the mongols were like, the only army that could move fast, fighting wars in africa, europe,. and asia at the same time as well as dealing with a rebellion in the heart of the empire. go figure.

Here, we have a simple battlefield formation. 1) If you were the Mongols (blue) and have a birds eye view of the Roman formation (red), can you identify where the Romans are weak and how you might attack? 2) If you were the Romans and have a birds eye, what would you generally need to do as an effective defense? If you think that the Romans can't be broken in, in the first situation, fine, just replace the Romans with another army. This is more of a tactics test than anything else.

i can t do much of anythign with mere shapes on a board- what it was, that is say what type of troops, and where, and in about what numners are the present on.

well, first your going to have to back up that statment- as even in the time of the punic wars, the Romans were no longer using phalanx formations, and were relyting on a combination of light/medium infantry armed with swords and javlins, backed up by rather scanti numbers of real, hardcore spearmen- totally different from the greek style of fighting, as you should well recall

I never said they they used the phalanx formation. They used spears, armor, and shields in the 3-line formation, and later on in cohorts and such. Same equipment, different style of fighting. Thus the Hun = Mongol analagy fails. Same equipment, vastly different style of fighting.

A)the Huns still had a huge warrior ethos, and by the time fo attilla, were still more the cabalble fo defeating various othe rpeople who had been giving the late Romans quite a bit of trouble, though in turn, weres till defeated by the last scrap of the roman army, which was a huge infantry contigent for the most part, and didnt even make up a full half or perhaps even a third of the total allied troops to fight the huns.

however, it its cavalry armies you want, you need look no further then the various SKythia, bosporand, and sub brreds of the two wars, as well as the wars with Parthia and the neo-persian empire to see that Rome could make itself a very capable warrior agiast even bow weilding mounted opponents.


The fact that Huns weren't in fact cavalry armies rather makes your comparison as Huns=Mongols and inferring Roman success moot. As we can well see, Rome never conquered Parthia OR the Persian empire. If anything, Rome and Persia were equals.

individual equipment dosent matter, that simple- even formatiopnal equipment only modifies soem thing but not all of it- a bow twice that distance isnt goign to help when you being flanked on two sides by two roman cavalry alas- that said, the though that stirrups do anything is complete bull****- i dotn ride horses, but I know people who do, and ive read the testimonies, and people honestlly say that stirrups dont go for anything when making for a 'firmer" charge- its just easyer yo learn how to ride with them.

How many cavalry charges has your friend done? It's simple physics. Newton's law: For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. You slam against a heavy relatively immobile body (in this case, an infantry formation). That's the force from you, the mass of your horse, all 400 pounds charging at 30 miles per hour suddenly coming to a dead stop. Guess where all that force is going to end up? Without a stirrup, the only thing to stop you from getting knocked flat off your horse will the slight amount of friction between your butt and the horse saddle, which is to say you'll go flying. A stirrup gives the rider something to stand against, thus allowing them to distribute the full force of the charge evenly with the horse. Standing on a stirrup similarly gives a better weapon swing, and stirrups allow control of a horse with less use of hands.

As for tactics and strategy, I've gone through that in more than enough detail. The Mongols won their battles, won their wars, sieged every city and fortification, and defeated just about every people they came across.

A very simple question? How the heck do you even go about making the silly assumption that the Mongols are going to be flanked? As in how do you think several hundred horse are going to outflank a tens of thousands of horse-mounted archers? The Roman auxilia aren't going to outflank the Mongol army. The Mongols were famous for being to outflank entire countries.

Mongols outnumber auxilia in horses, are more mobile, and have better cavalry. If anything, the Mongols do the flanking. How is bow irrelevant when they have a 400 meter range? That's practically half a kilometer the enemy cavalry needs to charge before they get shot. That's a loose grasp of reality you've got there.


A)firstlly, you shoudl change your opeing to that YOU have never know the Romans for thier quality of cavalry- I can assure you that I have known of its quality, and its very evident, particuler when you go over the reconqoest of the west by belisarius who was using late Roman cataphracts

B)" Roman cavalry was usually light, and morale wasn't great, either." if you want to liit your armies to thos ebefore the marian reforms, youd be right- but I'm no tonoly talkign post marian reforms, i'm talkign post Augustian as well, when Rome had formmed a fully equipped, well trianed fightign force of cavalry, that was able to root all other cavalry oppoentns whil;e it was fiedled- every culture that used horses as either the sole point, or the lynch pin of its tacts was routed by post augustan, pre-diocletian reform armies

I've already stated that the Mongols were able to defeat countless other horse-based peoples and armies. Roman light cavaly were either shield-archers, or barbarian auxilia. Those would be easily outranged, outfought, and outgeneraled. If you're picking Belisarius era, then the Romans would be at an even bigger disadvantage. Armies of perhaps 40,000 max versus the armies Hadrian and Trajan were capable of fielding. No mixing and matching different generals, eras, and equipment. The Mongols were very capable of taking on heavy cavalry. See Poland and Hungary. Light cavalry could outrun and outrange heavy cavalry, and arrows could pick them off. If they're armored, the horses would be shot, and then they'd be run down. If both were armored, then the rider would be lassoed and dragged off his horse, and then same. I believe the Mongols even used firecrackers in Europe to scare and panic horses unused to them, which sometimes knocked riders off their panicking horses.


obviouslly, canna happens far before the augustian reforms, adn adrianople happens well the diocletian reforms- and neither fo which cover the actual era of armies of saying that Rome coudl win with- you need to find actual expamples of a high or mid imperial army beign trashed by cavalry to have a point- but then you not going to find an example of that, but at that time Rome wielded a well balenced, well equipped, well drilled, and professional army, that crushed everythign in its path, includign itself on more then one occasion

1st century armies were Augustan armies, 3rd century was basically when Rome was being assaulted by barbarians on all sides. Throughout the 2nd century, Rome had more or less constant borders, pax romana and all that. The only major wars were border wars with German barbarians, the Dacian campaign, and the move into Mesopotamia. Trajan tried (and failed) to conquer the Parthian Empire (which was going through civil troubles of its own at the time), and Hadrian had to withdraw to more natural borders.

A)once agian, the imeprial army istn the army that was trashed at carrhae, and it wasnt the army that was trashed at adrianople

B)the romans didnt "rely" on infantry, just liek they didnt "rely" on cavarly in the era I'm tlakign about- thewy tended to get lavish off battlefeild attention, but on the battlefeild, the Commanders utlized both however they were needed to ensure victory- the simple materilization of the cataphract, and heavy horsement that in its day could multi -role, and on many occasion in th ebelisarian camapign, amoung others, were the the only troops involved ina battle agiasnt superior numbers of the oppoent, and still won;you can possibley say the the Roman had no cavalry, or crappy cavalry- ti dosetn cut it.

C)If you think that the Romans fough tliek european knights, then you have no buisness int he thread, if you think that equipment is the soel factor of war, then you have no buisness in this thread- it equipment was the sole factor in war, then iraq qould be won by now, but rathe robviouslly it istn.

D)your also forgettign the other important faros of a well balenced and happy Roman army, the light cavalry, rangerd troops, and feild artillery peices.

The thread topic stated Julius Caesar and Ghengis Khan, therefore I used the standard fare: Mongols vs legions. Belisarian armies aren't mid-imperial armies. They're five centuries after Caeser and long after the fall of the west. With Belisarian armies, Rome is nowhere near capable of fielding the vast armies of the Trojan era. Belisarius himself never commanded more than 20,000 troops. Hell, Belisarius era makes it far easier for the Mongols, since they'll basically outnumber the Romans 10 to 1. When it comes to numbers, Mongols have the advantage. When if comes to equipmen, Mongols have the advantage due the the vastly superior range of their bows. Tactics wise, Mongols have the single greatest conqueror of all time. The man who, with maybe a hundred men, set out to conquer the world, acquiring more territory than Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Timerlane, and Napoleon combined.

I have quite a few points to counter to your remarks. If you think Mongols fought like Huns, you have no business in this read. If you think all the Mongols' opponents were third rate armies. If you think that Roman cavalry can outflank Mongols, you have a very loose grasp of realities.


A)where talkign not about the armies of Rome I;ve choosen here, and your forgettign a keen fac to Roman histopry for that period- the Romans didnt fight on thier own ground, they met the enemy head on- the mongols would be able to "sack and rape" any Roman town because the Romans themselves wouldnt be in thier own empire.

B)you say freedom to manuver? I say poppy cock- didnt hep the ostrogoths when they attmepted to seige rome when belisarius had retaken it- the biggest bithc to anyone actually tryign to sige a roman army is the fact that they too, carried all thier **** with them, and so could survive for extended periods of time on thier own supplies, untila relife force would come, or they themselves defeated the enemy

C)the Mogol modus operandi could have been "wipe thier ass, all of it" and it wouldnt really matter, as you seem to be forgetting that while the Romans often wer eleient to local populations, they were also not afraid to give into bloodlust, and kill everyobne, potential meat sheilds and workers included- the Romans were troops trianed to kill thier own brothers in arms if they so had too, you should well remember that when thinking of whom had more nerve

D)your point also brings forward another strong point for rome- the fact that they didnt just send one army to tdo the job, as they were firm beliver sint he term "overkill", and often sent three armies to go out, and do what was needed; okay, so your mongols pin down the intial army- the other two now learn a bastion of Mongol tactics, and prepare for it, and possible even leade a counte rmarch to relive army 1's position

The Romans have no choice but to fight on their own ground. The Mongols have historically been able to invade Europe. The Romans never even got near the steppes, much less the Mongolian heartland. :rolleyes: Your first point is silly. Furthermore, assuming they do march the necessary 10,000 miles to get there, what are they going to do, burn down grass? :rolleyes: The Mongols have no cities. Meanwhile, while the Romans are busy burning grass, the Mongols are raping and looting Roman towns.

Romans did not carry all their supplies with them. Their food and baggage (impedimenta) were carried by slaves in a baggage train behind them. Ever read the Bello Galligo? Caesar writes about his baggage trains and the occasional needs to outrace them on fast campaign marching. So please don't make up stuff at random just to support your Roman uber-wanking.

Are you seriously suggesting to me that Roman men on foot are going to outrace men on horseback? :rolleyes: The Mongols sent multiple armies, too. The Mongols are faster, they get to pick and choose when and where to fight, and the Romans can't catch up to them on foot. If they concentrate their armies, the Mongols can bypass and burn down the rear liens and kill all the citizens, and annihilate the baggage trains. Without a supply line, a large infantry army is just a marching famine. If they spread thin to defend, that just makes small groups easy to pick off.

A)someone seems to be forgetting that the walls of constantinople. built by late romans, and without the advatages of rome concrete was still able to hold up agiast guns and gun powder, arnt they

B)obviosully, that just underlines the fact that Roman cities were infact often guarded by a concrete wall, and the reason that in the late empire so many wer epillaged istn because the walls fialed, its because the late ropman army was crap, and defeate din feild battlels, and left no troops for city defense

C)actually, if anything, its the Romans whom have the seige engine advatage- not because th emongol have cities to seige, because the Romans always enjoyed giving thier enemy the tasty surprise of having to deal with such artiller fire on thier own ranks of troops; I ask just how many times did the mongols come under masser artillery fire under thier campaigns, anyway?


The walls of Constanipole FELL, if you didn't realize. The Mongols have conventional, cannon, and rocket artillery to utilize against the Romans. The Romans have only pre-middle age artillery, Mongols obviously had the advantage. And FYI, Mongol invasion of Song China was the first major war involving gunpowder weapons on both sides. Song made extensive use of rocket artillery. Of course, unlike the Romans, the Mongols don't have convenient densely packed formations to use artillery against. Again, the Mongols have the advantage of Middle Eastern, Central Asian, Chinese, and Eastern European siege technology. Everything the Romans had, the Mongols had, and more.

big empires dont mean big armies, and more over big armies dont mean good armies; agian the modern world is a picture perfect case, with N. Korea having the largest army in the world, the US military tiny compared to it; but in regule rmilitary engagements, the US army wins handsdown; the smae applies for all eras mind you- war is often a game of knowldge and tactics, somthign the Romans excelled at- the mongols were no one to cough at with it, but a thousand year empire tends to be fairlly tellign about how good, on average, Roman tacticians were, and what king of wisdom they could draw upon

Fine. I'll TELL you, then. The Mongols fought against big armies, and those big armies were good armies. All three states occupying China were formidable states with huge armies. The Jurchans were steppe cavalry people, and very militaristic, combined with the vast manpower potential of northern China. The Song was the most militarily advanced, had huge armies numbering some two million, armed with technology like gunpower weapons, rockets, artillery, river navies, repeating crossbows, and more. The Kwarazim empire got that big through conquest. It had giant armies, with both steppe cavalry and heavily armed cataphracts. The Persian and Arab armies that the Mongols annihilated were the ones that defeated the Byzantines. The Mongols defeated knights, the predecessors of the heavy barbarian heavy cavalry that caused the decline of Roman military power. You seem to have a fixed mental block in your head that anything non-Roman = bad.

the Carthaginains werre harldey devided- the same goes for the macedonians, parthians, persians, select peiods in Iberian history, numdians, nor most steep armies that Rome faced were actually divdided, and yet rome managed to whoop thier asses- amazinglly enough, almost all those armies utilize cavalry that migt be considered 'superior" to what the romans sported as well

The Carthaginians were divided. It was because of rival court factions that Carthage refused to support Hannibal's campaigns for fear of his power. The parthians were going through civil disorders and revolts during the period Trajan (unsuccessfully) invaded. As were the Macedonians. Rome never faced any steppe armies, unless you count the Seljuk Turks, in which case they got licked badly.

A)your obviouslly not famillear with the lightning campaigns of vespasian in britian, but I'll let you go read up on him

B)no where near on what the nongols fought? then how do you gall conqoured conaouring all gual on a single huge campaign simple- or more impresisllvy, conqouring all mesoptamia in one go under Trajan, or how about Dacia, or Numdia? the Romans have just as many expamples of of feild large forces on mass excerison of conqourest into enemy territoy and coming back victiours on thier intial campaign as the mongols do, perhaps more so given roes fgar longer history

You're obviously not familiar with a sense of scale. 500 miles vs 5000+ miles. Asia+Europe = bigger than island of Britain. Area of everything between Russia, China, and India = greater than France, or Mesopotamia, or Dacia, or Numidia.

But since you mention Dacia..........The Mongols basically invaded Russia in the midst of winter, then proceeded through Dacia (modern Romania), and then moved through the mountain ranges in midwinter to plow through Hungarian forces (largest military power in Europe at the time), WHILE simultaneously campaigning in Poland FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF SECURING A FLANK. If case you can't do math, the area encompassing Dacia, Hungary, Russia, and Poland is greater than the area of Dacia itself. That's what I mean about Mongol invasions being faster, more coordinated, and conducted on a far higher scale than Roman campaigns.

interstinglly enough, the Roman, and go figure thius, as it shoudl obviosully be impossibel since the mongols were like, the only army that could move fast, fighting wars in africa, europe,. and asia at the same time as well as dealing with a rebellion in the heart of the empire. go figure.

Again, scale and numbers seem to bother you. Romans campaigned hundreds of miles (at most, they couldn't even that far along the Danube or German frontier, or against the Persians). Mongols campaigned for thousands of miles. Mongols were far faster and in fact the fastest armies in all of history until the 20th century. Somehow, repeating the mantra of Roman superiority doesn't change a thing of that.

Match set: Mongols!!

Extra points to Jeff Yu for making clear and concise arguments. Xen... it seems a combination of drugs, alcohol, and sleep deprivation have impaired your typing and reasoning skills. I've never had any problem with your posts before, but these are indecipherable. Your arguments here would be much easier disputed if anyone besides Jeff could understand you. Good luck with the hangover, buddy.
I don't know anything nearly in-depth enough to make any valid points either way, with the exception of the importance of the stirrup. Stirrups transferred the majority of a horseman's weight to his feet and legs, essentially allowing him to "stand up" in the saddle. How is this of any significance in a battle? Have a seat. Now throw a baseball, a pole, swing a bat, or draw a bow if there's one handy. Now stand up, and do the same thing. Anyone that doubt's the benefits of a stirrup has quite clearly never stopped to think about this for a second, much less conduct tests on a horse.

SO what- you wish to conceed the argument? Not happening- nothing you have said, despite rubeutleing my argument actually makes me think that the Mongosl coudl tak eon a thrid century Roman army -if unfied- and win, mostlly from your own mismatchign of Roman eras, assumptions that thje romans only used light cavalry, and heavy infantry, and woudl only have cavalry in small numbers- none fo which is the case, as diocletion, at tthe tail end of the middle imperial period had around 24,000 cataphracts/Clibinarri under his command 16 groupings of 1500, and this is only of his "full feild" status, and early commanders, such as aruelian could have expecte dot have feilded much more, as the wars agiasnt Palmyra for instance are recorded as being particuler rampant with cavalry

as for the stirrup argument- try what you say on an acnetin war adlle, which grips your thighs (or in soem cases, groin area) and gives you a firm bas eof stability around you buttock and thighs upon which to conduct you action- works just as well, but take smore getting used to.

thie ris also, of\course, the fact that my case for Roman innovation still stands- whiel both the mongols and romans eagerlly adapted to new situations, it was the romans who in the bette rposition- a reactionary situation- to creat somthign to counter act mongol technology, or stratagems- and obviouslly enough, the Romans were willign to do whatever it took to gian thier victories.

i can t do much of anythign with mere shapes on a board- what it was, that is say what type of troops, and where, and in about what numners are the present on.

Sorry, I uploaded the pre-editted battle; I've changed that. Assume grassland and clear weather. In this small battle, how would the Mongols approach the Romans, where are the Roman weaknesses? What is the best general strategy for the Romans in this case, what are the Roman strengths? How would it change if the forces where multiplied by 10?

If you think that this set up is unfair against the Roman army it's ok, just point out to me the strength and weakness of it. Tell me what each side would ideally yet realistically do.

The thread topic stated Julius Caesar and Ghengis Khan, therefore I used the standard fare: Mongols vs legions

I recant that and instead say the most powerful Roman army vs. The most powerful Mongol army.

Also, about the bows and stirrups, lets just assume that the romans had stirrups and uber bows, as well as cannons, siege, etc..., so that we can compare Roman military philosophy/tactics vs. Mongolian military philosphy/tactics.

unnwinnable. the romans need a larger cavalry presence to win.

unnwinnable. the romans need a larger cavalry presence to win.

My question isn't how to make the Romans win, it's whether or not you can identify what part of it is weak and also what they should do to minimize damage. You would agree that if these two armies were to meet, they would NOT charge straight into each other and fight right. They would have certain troops engage, and other troops wait.

Tell me, in this case, should the Romans try to draw in the Mongols or should they engage the Mongols? Actually if manuver correctly, the Roman army won't lose by that much in this case.
I, Stratego Khan shall make the first move. I send it my horse archers to harrass your Legionairies. How will you, Emperor Xen respond? Would you spread the Legionairies or concentrate them? Would you engage the Mongols or retreat. If you decide to engage the Mongols, which troops would you use?

My question isn't how to make the Romans win, it's whether or not you can identify what part of it is weak and also what they should do to minimize damage. You would agree that if these two armies were to meet, they would NOT charge straight into each other and fight right. They would have certain troops engage, and other troops wait.

Tell me, in this case, should the Romans try to draw in the Mongols or should they engage the Mongols? Actually if manuver correctly, the Roman army won't lose by that much in this case.
I, Stratego Khan shall make the first move. I send it my horse archers to harrass your Legionairies. How will you, Emperor Xen respond? Would you spread the Legionairies or concentrate them? Would you engage the Mongols or retreat. If you decide to engage the Mongols, which troops would you use?

hoestlly, I'd probaley dispatace messenger, san dlot sof them, spread accross th eind in every tdirection calling for a mass gathering of cavalry ala (1500 man contingent of cavalry) for a new front formation- as your current battle simple is not winnable for the Romans, they are in bad terrian, agiast troops who have the vast advantge, with few counter troops of thier own, only 3000 cavalry to counter, with no appernt number sof artilley, nor significan tnumberf of skirmishing troops to act as a genberla screen for the legioanries, as they manuver into a real position of advantage, by counter marchifn where the bropad movments of the mongol take them too.

obviouslly enough, the best option is to preapre for another battle that the Romans will be preapred to win on- that is, after all, how the romans won wars- by learning from istakes such as this, and preapreign with the apporpreita eresponses, for the next encounter.

if you do that..won't the mongols just send men to hunt ur messengers down? :confused:

the though that stirrups do anything is complete bull****- i dotn ride horses, but I know people who do, and ive read the testimonies, and people honestlly say that stirrups dont go for anything when making for a 'firmer" charge- its just easyer yo learn how to ride with them.

What on earth are you taling about?
Even if as you say stirrups only make learning to ride easier and have no affect on a 'firmer' charge (which is complete crap by the way), why on earth would cavalry armies of used the stirrup if it made no impact at all? To look pretty?
Get a grip man, Roman was good yes but you're just delusional.

Xen, by this time the Mongols would already have scouted the area, killed your scouts, so they would already have a better knowledge of the area than you did, and known most of the paths. Knowing this, they probably would outflank you using local trails that not even your own army knows about, end up with half their force behind you, AND kill your messengers. This was essentially on the scale of what the Mongols achieved, time after time.

Ok, to reduce this constant argument of "can they do this, can they do that," I've emailed three professors on Roman military to see their opinion on this. One specialized in Roman military equipment, the second Roman military tactics, and the last Roman bureaucracy. I'll keep you updated once they reply.

Xen, by this time the Mongols would already have scouted the area, killed your scouts, so they would already have a better knowledge of the area than you did, and known most of the paths. Knowing this, they probably would outflank you using local trails that not even your own army knows about, end up with half their force behind you, AND kill your messengers. This was essentially on the scale of what the Mongols achieved, time after time.

saying that is just the same as me saying the reverse, with the Romans themselves having prescouted the area, and having killed all the Mongol scouts; scouting the area is somthing that both armies, did, oddly enough (isnt it funny- these two armies did so many things alike- mabey because what they did were the rather clear cutr methods to a victory, thus both sides coudl have been expected to use them)

Ok, to reduce this constant argument of "can they do this, can they do that," I've emailed three professors on Roman military to see their opinion on this. One specialized in Roman military equipment, the second Roman military tactics, and the last Roman bureaucracy. I'll keep you updated once they reply.

cool- who are they?

saying that is just the same as me saying the reverse, with the Romans themselves having prescouted the area, and having killed all the Mongol scouts; scouting the area is somthing that both armies, did, oddly enough (isnt it funny- these two armies did so many things alike- mabey because what they did were the rather clear cutr methods to a victory, thus both sides coudl have been expected to use them)

Not so; the Mongol soldier, one for one, is going to kill your scouts. :)

Not so; the Mongol soldier, one for one, is going to kill your scouts. :)

this type of argument is stupid saying that point a is isnt going to happoen because such and such and such and such., even no thier is evidence for an attempt absoloutelly NO garuntee that it woul eithe rbe cdarried out, or successful

this type of argument is stupid saying that point a is isnt going to happoen because such and such and such and such., even no thier is evidence for an attempt absoloutelly NO garuntee that it woul eithe rbe cdarried out, or successful

Umm............ So what's the point of this thread at all, if there is no evidence, no guarantee than it would be carried out, or successful? Why are we even debating?

Show me that a Roman scout could beat a Mongol scout one on one.

Show me that a Roman scout could beat a Mongol scout one on one.
what the hell are you talking about? one for one it might well be a wrestleing match, and just as much is determined on personal physical stregth and fighting skills as it dose anything else.

as for why we are debateing- because the authoer wanted us to assume that the mongols and Romans were technologically equivilent, and then judge by thier stratagies and tactics, and well as, presumabley, other criteria, as to whom would win- I dont know if th emongols kept up thier shape in any Physical trianing, but the Romans did, so while I cant say for sure, because I just dont know what the other side dose, i lean towards the romans for that reason, fo rin a one-on-one fight, personal stregth can make all the difference.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umm............ So what's the point of this thread at all, if there is no evidence, no guarantee than it would be carried out, or successful? Why are we even debating?



in such a situation (this thread) you cannot say anythign for sure, but only give your opinion on what they might do, based on what is (or at least what ones happens to percive) as the bes toption in any particuler situation that would have been used by the particuler side your working on.

what the hell are you talking about? one for one it might well be a wrestleing match, and just as much is determined on personal physical stregth and fighting skills as it dose anything else.

as for why we are debateing- because the authoer wanted us to assume that the mongols and Romans were technologically equivilent, and then judge by thier stratagies and tactics, and well as, presumabley, other criteria, as to whom would win- I dont know if th emongols kept up thier shape in any Physical trianing, but the Romans did, so while I cant say for sure, because I just dont know what the other side dose, i lean towards the romans for that reason, fo rin a one-on-one fight, personal stregth can make all the difference.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


At the very LEAST a Mongol would match a Roman in physical strength. We're talking about steppe barbarians here, and they need every ounce of strength they can get.

At the very LEAST a Mongol would match a Roman in physical strength. We're talking about steppe barbarians here, and they need every ounce of strength they can get.

people woudl suspect Spartans were as strong as oxen too, but on average they only weighed around 180, and werent much stronger then any other particuler greek, and thats according to themselves!

in mass artmies, the physical stregth of one person dosent matter much- because its mass actions that are being taken; in a one on one, a brawl, or the smallest of skirmishes, then personal stregth dose matter.

that said, being a cavalryman dosetn particulerly indicate a great deal of personal stregth; i dont knwo the pull required by aMongolian bow, but i woudl bet its not over the range of 60-80 pounds.

people woudl suspect Spartans were as strong as oxen too, but on average they only weighed around 180, and werent much stronger then any other particuler greek, and thats according to themselves!

in mass artmies, the physical stregth of one person dosent matter much- because its mass actions that are being taken; in a one on one, a brawl, or the smallest of skirmishes, then personal stregth dose matter.

that said, being a cavalryman dosetn particulerly indicate a great deal of personal stregth; i dont knwo the pull required by aMongolian bow, but i woudl bet its not over the range of 60-80 pounds.

It was mentioned earlier. Somewhere in the range of 100 to 150, IIRC.

Besides which, what's to stop the Mongol from seeing the Roman and shooting him with a bow and arrow?

really, 100-150? awesome- I need to try one :D

and about the mongol with a bow an arrow- your the one who said one on one- that means a good ole' fashioned brawl; as its stupid to scout an area with only one person ina team, so any conflicts between batle feild scouting parties would be cavalry skirmishes.

really, 100-150? awesome- I need to try one :D

and about the mongol with a bow an arrow- your the one who said one on one- that means a good ole' fashioned brawl; as its stupid to scout an area with only one person ina team, so any conflicts between batle feild scouting parties would be cavalry skirmishes.

I never said a BRAWL, I said one on one. Full equipment, they see each other from a distance. And there the Mongols are sure to win; the Romans strength was on the battlefield in an organized group. Surely even YOU could say that the Mongols would win in a skirmish? :p

I never said a BRAWL, I said one on one. Full equipment, they see each other from a distance. And there the Mongols are sure to win; the Romans strength was on the battlefield in an organized group. Surely even YOU could say that the Mongols would win in a skirmish? :p

A)Roman equipment was made to be useful ina skirkish, with one-on-one fighting- dont belive me, give a try yourself- dont belive me after that? well, thier a reason 3 feet were used between each soldire, and that was to give each dude a good box around him to whip his junk out, and start whooping the enemy ;)

B)Those legioaries worked out you know; Roman forts have well designated weight rooms, and, at least in britian, thie rhave been actual dumbells of assorted weights actually found on site (thier broken, and were thrown intot he fort dump though)- thus, whiel I cant say much abotu the mongols, I KNOW that the Romans woudl be prepaared for a bralw

as for the skirmish- as so many thing, it depands on what romans, from what era- dont forget, mounts are also important, and the Roman mount of Spanish horse- a horse that even the arabs with thier famou sstallions opted to use when availible- was far and away better then those little mongolian ponies

A)Roman equipment was made to be useful ina skirkish, with one-on-one fighting- dont belive me, give a try yourself- dont belive me after that? well, thier a reason 3 feet were used between each soldire, and that was to give each dude a good box around him to whip his junk out, and start whooping the enemy ;)

I know that very well... I would not want to go into battle as a footsoldier against the Romans. Of course, I wouldn't want to against the Mongols, either. :p

B)Those legioaries worked out you know; Roman forts have well designated weight rooms, and, at least in britian, thie rhave been actual dumbells of assorted weights actually found on site (thier broken, and were thrown intot he fort dump though)- thus, whiel I cant say much abotu the mongols, I KNOW that the Romans woudl be prepaared for a bralw

Interesting, I didn't know that. Thanks for the information. :)

However, working out and NEEDing strength and personal fighting skills as a daily staple are two different things.

as for the skirmish- as so many thing, it depands on what romans, from what era- dont forget, mounts are also important, and the Roman mount of Spanish horse- a horse that even the arabs with thier famou sstallions opted to use when availible- was far and away better then those little mongolian ponies

However, they would not be charging each other in a skirmish, or at least the Mongols wouldn't charge the Romans. The Mongol horses would probably have the advantage in speed, after all, being lighter, and probably bred for that very trait.

the horses stregth at charging isnt important- both sides actually need to scout the battle feild, and scouting parties dont ususally fight each other for that very purpose- getting thier terrian, an denemy information is more important- in this case, the Spanish horse, whom can carry alot of weight, and still travel quite swiftlly, is the better option; because if they did get into a fight, the Roman scouts and skirmishers woudl be able to either get away fast, or get at the mongols fast enough to where if they lost casulties due to bow fire. they coudl make it up in close combat

the horses stregth at charging isnt important- both sides actually need to scout the battle feild, and scouting parties dont ususally fight each other for that very purpose- getting thier terrian, an denemy information is more important- in this case, the Spanish horse, whom can carry alot of weight, and still travel quite swiftlly, is the better option; because if they did get into a fight, the Roman scouts and skirmishers woudl be able to either get away fast, or get at the mongols fast enough to where if they lost casulties due to bow fire. they coudl make it up in close combat

And who says the Mongosl couldn't have retreated at the same time, firing parthian style at the Romans?

if the mongol sretreated, its noit likelly the Romans woudl persue, but rather just carry out the mission (liek wise, if the romans retreated, i dont see much sence in the mongol persuing them either)

if the mongol sretreated, its noit likelly the Romans woudl persue, but rather just carry out the mission (liek wise, if the romans retreated, i dont see much sence in the mongol persuing them either)

If they made a small scale retreat, not a large one? I'm referring to the temorary dancing away of the Mongol ponies to avoid charging foes.

well thats the thing; its doubtful that the Romans woudl charge in the gfirst place- its a scouting expedition, and even in the tim eof adrianople, the commanders were still smart enough to give explicit instructions to scouts not to engage the enemy- unfortunatellly, apperntlly troop[e rlistening skill swere no longer up to par by then, and they did exactley th eopposite, cause the folly of adrianople.

(Just as a side note, I just played out a similar battle in Rome: Total War pitting the Scythians against the Romans. With 1/2 the Romans' numbers I won the day with a kill count of over 6 times that of the Romans. Not that this will convince Xen or anything. :p )

Anyway, given that both would ahve equal knowledge of the battlefield or about that, what would be the Romans next move?

well obviously the AI isn't as competant as a real per