Rome VS The Mongols (hypothetical)

[stratego]

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.

 

[stratego]

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

 

[Jeff Yu]

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.

 

[Xen]

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

 

[Xen]

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.

 

[Xen]

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.

 

[Jeff Yu]

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. 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? 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? 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.

 

[Jeff Yu]

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.

 

[Bungus]

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.

 

[Xen]

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.

 

[Xen]

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.

 

[stratego]

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.

 

[bewareofgnomes]

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.

 

[Xen]

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

 

[stratego]

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?

 

[Xen]

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.

 

[alex994]

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

 

[Ancient Grudge]

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.

 

[North King]

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.

 

[stratego]

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.