Romans VS Mongols in real life

Jurassic King

Chieftain
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
16
While a battle in [civ5] would probably be inaccurate, depending on various factors, many people say in real life, the Mongols would slaughter the Roman Empire. I'm one of those people.
But did the Romans and Mongols ACTUALLY fight in real life? If so, who won? This question as always baffled me- and everything I find on Google is 'Who would win?" I just want to know if they actually did fight.
 
Not directly, but there were various 'roman' armies (as in Byzantine) fighting central-asian nomad-type horse-dominated forces (eg turkic). Entirely different formations and goals there, cause the Byz/Roman armies were meant to defend the homeland and were highly disciplined and regulated, while the nomadic horse-centered forces were primarily for pillaging and leaving, not meant to engage to decisive battles.
 
Considering the Mongols emerged in the 13th century and the "Roman Empire" ceased to exist in the 5th/6th and the Mongols never fought against the Byzantines I would say no, they never actually fought in history.

Of course you could argue that the Romans did fight the Huns, but that would depend on where you think the Huns came from.
 
This off topic with my own post, but I love your pic Owen! TLA is the best show I have ever seen!
 
No they did not fight. But the Mongols would've been essentially "Parthians with improved tactics" for the Romans.

I think those armies (Parthian and Mongol) were quite similar in many respects, but Mongol tactics were superior.

And also better quality weapons - technology of steelmaking, etc., I think it was better in the Mongol Empire.
 
Because the Mongols came later, they had more advanced weaponry. I think they may have even used gunpowder...
And their tactics were hit and run. The Romans would become completely scrambled, unable to follow the Mongols. And then they would hit again, correct?
 
The mongols maybe made up the finest fighting force ever seen.
I have heard they learn't to ride before they learn't to walk.
They seams most famous for their horse archery, but they seams to have mastered close melee to which they seldom get any credit for.
I don't know if they should be compared to parthian, was not mongols more nomadic then the parthians?

Mongol Warriors seams to have been supperior in quality against all their foes which may have had much with their lifestyle, Im not even sure rome can match the quality of the mongol warrior.
Maybe the mongol warriors deserves the title time for time the best trained army in history.

However I don't know much about the subjects.
 
The mongols maybe made up the finest fighting force ever seen.

No, that would probably be the US armed forces.

I'm being completely serious.
 
One of typical Mongol tactics was also feigned retreat, followed by a sudden counterattack.

Mongols also used to keep large reserves until the decisive moment of each battle.

Keeping large reserves was something that the Parthians perhaps did not use.

No, that would probably be the US armed forces.

Well, obviously M1 Abrams is far superior to a recurve bow or to a long cavalry spear.

But I think Denkt was referring to relative quality (i.e. quality of A vs. quality of opponents of A).
 
I don't know if they should be compared to parthian, was not mongols more nomadic then the parthians?

The Parthians were originally also nomadic, from Central Asia. Later they established a kingdom, initially subordinated to the Seleucid Empire as their vassal, but eventually the Parthians conquerred their former Seleucid overlords (except for the westernmost piece which was captured by the Romans).
 
From what I remember, Romans were failing hard while fighting with Parthian hit - and - run cavalry tactics.

Also, Roman Empire despite common belief didn't rely on winning almost every battle but winning almost every war, what I mean: Romans regularly experienced apocalyptic defeats :D
- obviously Hannibal
- Pyrrhus
- Boudicca
- Germanic Tribes
- Dacia
- Parthia
- Huns
etc.

But they relied on insane ability to regroup, learn from their own mistakes and slowly methodically win with enemy because of superior training and resources.

The problem is, the Mongols would be IMHO too fast to be defeated that way. Come on, these guys managed to conquer everything from Southern China to Persia and Hungary during few decades. If suddenly Mongol Horde appeared in eastern part of Roman Empire I am pretty sure they would annihilate Roman Legions and not give Rome enough time to counter attack... IRL Mongols annihilated modern Iraq and the only thing which stopped them from reaching Mediterranean Sea was Mamluk victory. And Mamluks won because of their superior light cavalry. Rome was relying on massive infantry forces, like China...

Generally the only armies which defeated Mongols were:
- Mamluks: because of light cavalry
- Indians: because of cavalry
- Vietnam: because of superior defensive tradition, strategy terrain
- Japan and Java, because of naval fails of Kubilai :p

Rome had none of these. It struggled with Parthia - Mongolia would massacre at least eastern parts of Empire.
 
From what I remember, Romans were failing hard while fighting with Parthian hit - and - run cavalry tactics.
Never mind that the Roman eventually conquered Parthian Mesopotamia and did well enough by all accounts.
That the major losses at Ctestiphon and Carrhae are remembered is that they were out of the ordinary for the Roman Army. (See the defeat at the hands of the Goths at Adrianople.)

Also, Roman Empire despite common belief didn't rely on winning almost every battle but winning almost every war, what I mean: Romans regularly experienced apocalyptic defeats :D
..
- Huns
etc.
Considering that every time a 'Roman' field army took to the field against the Huns they won, I'm curious as to where you are getting the Romans experiencing apocalyptic defeats from the Huns from. The apparent lack of Roman response to the Huns is in large part due to the general collapse of centralized imperial control over those regions.

Generally the only armies which defeated Mongols were:
- Mamluks: because of light cavalry
For what its worth, Mamluk cavalry tended to be just as well armed and armored as their Crusader counterparts. There are numerous records of Mamluks/Crusaders mistaking each other for their own side due to the similarities in armor worn and weapons used.
 
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Badger_Mouth"

Don't know if this is correct, and also don't know the quality of the chinese armies during this time but that victory seams rather impresive, even with alot more cavalry on the opponents side and about 1-5 disadvantage in numbers that looks like a slaughter more then a battle.
 
Generally the only armies which defeated Mongols were:
- Mamluks: because of light cavalry
- Indians: because of cavalry
- Vietnam: because of superior defensive tradition, strategy terrain
- Japan and Java, because of naval fails of Kubilai

There is something in my memory that also Georgians (?) repelled the Mongol invasion.

Probably because of mountains.

By the way - Poland was invaded by the Mongol Empire not once but 3 times during the 1200s and only 1st invasion (in 1241) was a clear Mongol victory (while 3rd invasion - in 1287/1288 - was a clear victory for Poland, invasion repulsed; and 2nd invasion - in 1259/1260 - was more or less inconclusive).

Second Mongol Invasion of Poland:

http://translate.google.com/transla...a.org/wiki/II_najazd_mongolski_na_Polsk%C4%99

Third Mongol Invasion of Poland:

http://translate.google.com/transla....org/wiki/III_najazd_mongolski_na_Polsk%C4%99

======================================

Generally the only armies which defeated Mongols were

The Russians and the Lithuanians also eventually defeated the Mongols but of course long after the Mongol "golden age":

Lithuanian victory against Mongols (in 1362-1363):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blue_Waters

Russian victory against Mongols (in 1380):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kulikovo

There were also Polish and Hungarian victories against the Mongols during Galicia–Volhynia Wars (1340-1392):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galicia–Volhynia_Wars

But in 1399 there was a major Christian (Lithuania was also Christian already at that time) defeat against the Golden Horde:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Vorskla_River
 
Never mind that the Roman eventually conquered Parthian Mesopotamia and did well enough by all accounts.
That the major losses at Ctestiphon and Carrhae are remembered is that they were out of the ordinary for the Roman Army. (See the defeat at the hands of the Goths at Adrianople.)

[...]

Galerius, of course, did conquer Ctesiphon, and the Sassanids were forced to trade most of everything to the north of it so as to be given it back. You likely are refering to Julian's latter campaign against the persians, but even then his army did win against the persian army outside of Ctesiphon, but the latter just retreated inside Ctesiphon, and due to the nice logistics plan of Julian's the rest of his forces did not arrive and so he had to abandon the siege due to the rest of the persian forces set to arrive soon. During leaving he managed to be killed. :) Eventually his campaign set the Empire back a full century, and the lands in Mesopotamia changed hands for the final time.
 
Also there was a failed Mongolian expedition into Indonesia that was repelled by some kingdom (forget which). The commander in charge of that expedition also fell into disgrace like many of the other commanders of failed expeditions
 
Never mind that the Roman eventually conquered Parthian Mesopotamia

Aren't you confusing Parthians with Sassanids ???

During Sassanid times Roman army was very different than during Parthian times.

Also Sassanid army was quite different than Parthian army.

For example in Sassanid armies horse archers were to a large extent replaced by infantry (foot) archers.

Also there was a failed Mongolian expedition into Indonesia that was repelled by some kingdom (forget which). The commander in charge of that expedition also fell into disgrace like many of the other commanders of failed expeditions

It only shows that there is no such thing like "invincible army". All allegedly invincible armies in history also had their defeats.
 
I think you all are forgetting to consider the fact that Rome wouldn't be the same as when they fell if they continued to advance into the Mongol's age (assuming that the argument is to be determined as logically as possible, bringing the Romans realistically into the later timeline of the mongols makes the most sense).

You have to imagine how advanced the Romans would be. As if they weren't advanced enough already, making the descent into the medieval era after the fall of Rome nearly look like a downgrade if it wasn't for book-copying monks, they would probably be way ahead of our time should they had lived on.

You all are assuming that, and even acknowledging the futility of how the Roman empire at its height would unrealistically fight a force a thousand years ahead of its time. I imagine that Rome would most likely had expanded upon their already formidable strategies and become advanced enough to not be entirely slaughtered by the brilliant Mongol horde.
 
Top Bottom