Romans VS Mongols in real life

otaman1 said:

And that is exactly what this is about. The Mongols would just dominate the Romans because they had guns. Mounted gunners are deadlier than mounted archers. The Hungarians and Polish couldn't even keep the Mongols out of bay. And the Bulgarians and Russians became under Mongol rule (Bulgaria became a vassal). Also, the Byzantine army fled Thrace when Nogai Khan raided it.

Click to expand...

The Mongols certainly used firearms on horseback in the early 20th century, but not during their medieval conquests. Hell, as late as the 19th century peoples such as the Comanche rejected firearms because muzzle-loaders were less effective from horseback than bows and spears, and quite a few European cavalry stuck to lances and swords at the time.

Jurassic King said:

Because many factors in Civilization can affect the outcome of the war... the age both Civilizations are in, Social Policies, the economy, allies and enemies, barbarians...
Especially the first one. If I send in legions (literally legions. Like the unit, not a massive army) against tanks, artillery, bombers and nukes, who would win?

Click to expand...

I'm pretty clear on how the Mongols could trounce the Romans in a game of Civilization, whichever version it happens to be. I think I was asking either for a more detailed analysis of why you felt the Mongols would clownstomp the Romans, or why you considered yourself one of "those people" and what that group is.

Nah, in civilization 4 the praetorian unit pawns all other units- the mongols wouldn't live long enough to put their horse archers into play and even if they could, what good are 6 strength , one first strike, two move ignore terrain cost horse archers against 8 strength that come earlier?

jackelgull said:

Nah, in civilization 4 the praetorian unit pawns all other units- the mongols wouldn't live long enough to put their horse archers into play and even if they could, what good are 6 strength , one first strike, two move ignore terrain cost horse archers against 8 strength that come earlier?

Click to expand...

Depends on the available strategic resources for both the Mongols and Romans. In any case, I'm not focused on the game aspect.

Well we have to consider we are comparing a civilization destroyed in the classical age to one at made it all the way to the medieval age and is still limping along in the modern age.

So first we have to consider where Rome would be if it managed to survive the barbarian invasions. And we should note that this wouldn't be the same Rome as in say the time of Augustus- it would bear scars. And we should also consider that while it might not recover all of its former glory, it could still feasibly evolve and develop tactics against the Mongol hordes.

So I am not sold on either civilization emerging victorious.

Owen Glyndwr said:

No, that would probably be the US armed forces.

I'm being completely serious.

Click to expand...

Really? You think a US soldier could hold his own wielding a composite bow and on horseback?

Linkman226 said:

Really? You think a US soldier could hold his own wielding a composite bow and on horseback?

Click to expand...

Who said anything about a composite bow and horseback?

The assertion was that "The Mongols were the finest fighting force the world has ever seen."

This is ludicrous. The US Military has better cohesion, more power projection, better communication, better lines of supply, (arguably) better leadership, more versatility, and the top trained units in the US military are at least as skilled with the weapons of their day as the Mongols were with the weapons of theirs.

It has nothing to do with like for like. The US military is simply a more effective fighting force now than the Mongol armies were then.

Owen Glyndwr said:

Who said anything about a composite bow and horseback?

The assertion was that "The Mongols were the finest fighting force the world has ever seen."

This is ludicrous. The US Military has better cohesion, more power projection, better communication, better lines of supply, (arguably) better leadership, more versatility, and the top trained units in the US military are at least as skilled with the weapons of their day as the Mongols were with the weapons of theirs.

It has nothing to do with like for like. The US military is simply a more effective fighting force now than the Mongol armies were then.

Click to expand...

The implication is that this is even a remotely fair comparison; or to go further yet, that the term "finest fighting force" is even meaningful. Reduce the world to the technological levels of Genghis' world and watch all of your advantages wither away like so many flowers after a summer frost.

Linkman226 said:

The implication is that this is even a remotely fair comparison; or to go further yet, that the term "finest fighting force" is even meaningful. Reduce the world to the technological levels of Genghis' world and watch all of your advantages wither away like so many flowers after a summer frost.

Click to expand...

I know, which is why I wasn't looking at technology, but rather overall military cohesion, level of training, and ability to project power.

Which are all products of technology. How is it fair to compare power projection (for example), when we have planes and satellites? Mongolia can into space?

Linkman226 said:

Which are all products of technology. How is it fair to compare power projection (for example), when we have planes and satellites? Mongolia can into space?

Click to expand...

Look mang, I'm not the one who started this. I think comparisons across vast historical time periods like this are dumb. Which is why I don't really ever do them. I see something laughable and I point it out. What more do you want from me?

Uh, nothing. Looks like we agree. Moving on?

Linkman226 said:

Which are all products of technology. How is it fair to compare power projection (for example), when we have planes and satellites? Mongolia can into space?

Click to expand...

Even if you stripped a bunch of American soldiers naked we still have incredible advantages do to the science behind our training. Modern soldiers have, for example, an extraordinarily high willingness to attack to kill, far more than ancient peoples.

Hygro said:

Even if you stripped a bunch of American soldiers naked we still have incredible advantages do to the science behind our training. Modern soldiers have, for example, an extraordinarily high willingness to attack to kill, far more than ancient peoples.

Click to expand...

Can I get a citation for that? That seems incredibly spurious, seeing as the history of military technology for quite some time has been "How can we further divorce a man from his prey?"

I also am not quite sure why you think removing some ~800 years of military innovation is as easy as removing a soldier's clothes. Hence why the comparison is unfair.

Linkman226 said:

Can I get a citation for that? That seems incredibly spurious, seeing as the history of military technology for quite some time has been "How can we further divorce a man from his prey?"

Click to expand...

I read it in a book

Linkman226 said:

I also am not quite sure why you think removing some ~800 years of military innovation is as easy as removing a soldier's clothes. Hence why the comparison is unfair.

Click to expand...

Why would you ever even ask that? Quite an assumption to make about what I think. And a bit arbitrary given that the OP is asking us to comparing armies from a longer gap that 800 years.

Well OP is merely asking us to analyze who would win, which is fairly straight-forward. The US Army would no doubt devastate the Mongolians. The person I was responded to (Owen) and the person (s)he was responding to (Denkt) was making a far grander claim- that the Mongols or the US Army make "up the finest fighting force ever seen." That's quite different in a number of very meaningful and important ways.

As for the book, did it claim that modern troops are less loathe to kill than ancients? Do you have any proof of that or can you summarize it? I'm not gonna buy and read a book to settle an internet argument (although I might for other reasons), but certainly Petraeus did not burn the libraries of Baghdad and make giant pyramids of Baghdadi skulls. In light of pre-modern barbarity in war, I'm not quite sure how you argue such a thing.

Linkman226 said:

As for the book, did it claim that modern troops are less loathe to kill than ancients? Do you have any proof of that or can you summarize it? I'm not gonna buy and read a book to settle an internet argument (although I might for other reasons), but certainly Petraeus did not burn the libraries of Baghdad and make giant pyramids of Baghdadi skulls. In light of pre-modern barbarity in war, I'm not quite sure how you argue such a thing.

Click to expand...

The book argues that psychologically, combat killing and extra-combat atrocities are quite different. It is very unnatural for 90%+ of humans to kill other humans, and so requires modern training to overcome the "shooting high" (and bludgeoning/slashing instead of lethal stabbing) trends of the past. Most army to army slaughters literally occurred during the losing army's retreat, when their backs were turned and it made it easy for the winning soldiers to bear the burden of killing another person (not seeing their face and stuff).

So to answer your first sentence, regardless of loathe, modern troops are far more likely to actually do it. We train soldiers to kill on instinct and to override the instincts that hold us back.

Again this seems like an extremely specious line of logic to me. I have no doubt that we train our soldiers to kill more effectively by removing psychological barriers, but I don't see any proof that that wasn't the case before as well. What I really don't understand is why you're excluding extracombat atrocities from the picture; further, I find the term "extra-combat" somewhat objectionable, as it paints a picture of Timur, Genghis, et. al. as peaceful agriculturalists and pastoral nomads just harvesting crops and raising livestock, rather than cutting down entire cities to the last man, woman, and child. I fail to see what is so non-combatative about an army slaughtering hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians in a single day.

Modern soldiers have, for example, an extraordinarily high willingness to attack to kill, far more than ancient peoples.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I don't think that for example an atheist is more willing to risk his life than a guy who believes in some sort of afterlife. And aggressiveness (= willingness to attack to kill) always requires more boldness and risk-taking than a more defensive posture in battle (i.e. fighting to survive rather than to kill).

And this entire "psychology of killing" thing posted by Hygro is based mostly on experiences from 20th century conflicts, most of which saw mass (millions) armies of mostly conscripts. Ancient or Medieval armies were smaller but usually consisted of people more accustomed to war. Such a Medieval knight for example between major wars often fought in various petite conflicts - quarrels between neighbours, fights between clans, etc. - and even in times of peace they were addicted to duels and tournaments, where they usually fought with sharp weapons even if the purpose was not killing the enemy but only "first blood" or dismounting the enemy from his horse.

There has always been a psychological dufference between elite warriors and conscripts. But elite warriors always existed and if anything, the proportion of conscripts in wars increased in the last few centuries.

The US military is simply a more effective fighting force now than the Mongol armies were then.

Click to expand...

And that is why Vietnam repulsed U.S. invasion even without help of the Divine Wind...

Linkman226 said:

I fail to see what is so non-combatative about an army slaughtering hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians in a single day.

Click to expand...

The civilians, who are noncombatants. That makes killing them mass murder, not combat. War crimes in combat are things like using exploding bullets or flamethrowers; war crimes out of combat are things like shooting at the wrong people.