Rome VS The Mongols (hypothetical)

[North King]

well obviously the AI isn't as competant as a real person. Pit uyourself agaisnt Xen, then lets see

I was going to try fighting as the Romans next.

 

[Xen]

(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. )

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

well, one part of scouting the terrian, for both sides, would be lookign at the enemy forces- for Rome, in this case, its really lookign to see what forces its going to need, what forces it has, and what forces its goign to have to invent, to pull out for a real war- trajans dacian campiagn is a perfect example- thier were several of them, each oen a successive test of how the Roman army was workign agiast the Dacians- by the last war, you have Romans with re-inforced helemts (and possibley sheilds), all soldires, not just officers with greaves (leg plates for those whom dont knwo the terminology), as well as the arm plates that you in gladiatorial arenas- which functioned as a rather ownderful innovator of arms and armor- the reason fro all this was the wepaons, such as the falx (flax?), and the fact that the dacians were no mere barbarians, but an orgnized state, and were able to feild ballistae of thier own on the battlefeild

thus the next move by the Romans woudl be, if they had not already from scoutign the terrian, get osem idea, by anymeans of just what they were faceing before the actual battle- andif if that could not be done, then dis[patch riders when the actual battle occured as to what sort of re-enforcments, and military changes to the particuler army(ies) sent, would be needed.

thus, even if rome lost the first battle, it woudl be ready with an improved force for the next battle.

 

[blindside]

I believe you are correct with the spelling "falx". I think it was the only weapon for which the Romans actually built specific equipment to better defend against it.

 

[Xen]

I believe you are correct with the spelling "falx". I think it was the only weapon for which the Romans actually built specific equipment to better defend against it.

after most wars you see the romans, in certian areas at least, having some times very major equipment changes-- take for example the development of helmets over time-

you see a development from a rather sparsedesign good for classical, and hellenisit warfare, up tot he time of cease to a development of a bulkier helmet thats far better bale to protect the wearer from, well, just about everything by the second century.- so while the Dacian wars are a war in which, perhaps unusally, innovations were taken right thier to confront the enemy, every war had its impact on how the Romans waged war, with what equipment, just as much as style and resources had on local armourers.

 

[Jeff Yu]

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

If unified? There's nothing to justify third-century Roman armies being unified. Historical third century Rome was filled with bad emperors, disloyal legions, and barbarian-on-Roman asskicking. "If unified". Notice I don't need to make any such assumptions on the parts of the Mongols. "If unified", I could use that to the Mongol's advantage, too. "If unified" the post-Genghis Mongols would consist of Mongolia proper, the Golden Horde (Russia, Ukraine, Moldavia, eastern Lithuania), the Il-Khans (Persia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkistan, Pakistan and northern India), the Chagatai Khanate (eastern Turkistan), and Yuan China (China, Manchuria, Tibet, Burma, northern Vietnam, Korea). That's easily 60-70% of the world population a thousand years past Rome being pitted against the Romans (who would be likely suffering from the Black Death, see below).

Honestly, you weren't able to address any of the points listed:

1) Rome's ability to strike Mongolia: Please explain, pray tell, about how a Roman army marching across the length of Siberia on an epic grass-burning expedition won't end a hundred times worse than Napoleon's Russian campaign?

2) You weren't able to explain how Rome would outflank Mongols with either:
early Imperial armies - how small amounts of light cavalry going to outflank an entire cavalry army?
late Imperial armies - how are heavy horse, loaded down with man- and horse- armor, going to outflank and outrun light cavalry?

3) Logistics: The Romans aren't able to attack Mongol logistics, because they have no supply lines, while Roman supply lines are vulnerable because horse is inherently faster than men on foot marching with armor. Also that the fact that any kind of collatoral damage upon cities, civilians, etc will be commited on Roman ground, since they won't get anywhere near Mongolia.

4) Scale: You remind me of elementary-school kids who held a bake sale to reduce the US national debt; no sense of scale. You remark on the speed of campaigning by mentioning Dacia, when Dacia was for the Mongols merely a stepping stone on an extended thousands mile campaign. You mention Mesopotamia when Halagu conquered northern India, Persia, Mesopotamia, and Syria in one go, basically replicating the feat of Alexander the Great in the opposite direction.

5) Siege: Inability to explain how pre-medieval Roman fortifications are unable to stand up against post-medieval siege weapons and the age of gunpowder.

To which I'll add:

6) Biological warfare: The Mongols were known for biological warfare; they catapulted dead bodies and plague victims into city walls to speed up their disease and rates of attrition. Historically, the Mongols were responsible for the Black Death across Europe, which wiped out 1/3 of the population of Europe. The Romans are going to face epic manpower losses due to the plague.


All to which you haven't stated ANY possible ways as to how the Romans would win. The Romans will outflank the Mongols how, exactly? The Romans will attack the Mongols how, exactly, when they can't even catch up? The Romans would siege exactly which Mongol cities? The Romans will ambush the Mongols how, exactly? Roman catapults are superior to cannon and trebuchet how, exactly? I see lots of claims and assumed assertion, but no justification. All you could produce was draw battle against the Huns, who, as I pointed out, weren't a steppe cavalry army, consisted of loosely unified barbarians, used different tactics, and had a much looser chain of command.

thus, even if rome lost the first battle, it woudl be ready with an improved force for the next battle.

You're making the huge assumption that there would be actual survivors from the first battle. The Romans have heavy infantry, and maybe heavy cavalry, late era. If the Mongols win, fleeing Romans won't outrun men on horseback, and they'll get slaughtered while fleeing. In the unlikely scenario that the Mongols lose, the Romans can't pursue and harry them, because they can't catch up to cavalry. Remember, the Mongols were famous for slaughtering everybody and ensuring no survivors. They slaughtered entire armies, and even followed fleeing Kings thousands of miles across countries to ensure the complete destruction of their enemies. They slaughtered entire cities, and in fact left behind forces just in case there were survivors. After one incident of hearing of survivors hiding among corpses, the Mongols ordered from then on that the heads of corpses be cut off. The only survivors were usually men the Mongols wanted, or a select few that they allowed to flee to spread their tale of terror.

 

[Xen]

If unified? There's nothing to justify third-century Roman armies being unified. Historical third century Rome was filled with bad emperors, disloyal legions, and barbarian-on-Roman asskicking. "If unified". Notice I don't need to make any such assumptions on the parts of the Mongols. "If unified", I could use that to the Mongol's advantage, too. "If unified" the post-Genghis Mongols would consist of Mongolia proper, the Golden Horde (Russia, Ukraine, Moldavia, eastern Lithuania), the Il-Khans (Persia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkistan, Pakistan and northern India), the Chagatai Khanate (eastern Turkistan), and Yuan China (China, Manchuria, Tibet, Burma, northern Vietnam, Korea). That's easily 60-70% of the world population a thousand years past Rome being pitted against the Romans (who would be likely suffering from the Black Death, see below). [/qiote]

stop beign foolish- ive repeatelly made the disclaimer if the middle imperial legions were unified

Honestly, you weren't able to address any of the points listed:

1) Rome's ability to strike Mongolia: Please explain, pray tell, about how a Roman army marching across the length of Siberia on an epic grass-burning expedition won't end a hundred times worse than Napoleon's Russian campaign?

simple- they wouldnt- bt they wouldnt be fighting on Roman territory either; thiers quite a bit of land between the russian steppe, and the nearest roman border.

2) You weren't able to explain how Rome would outflank Mongols with either:
early Imperial armies - how small amounts of light cavalry going to outflank an entire cavalry army?
late Imperial armies - how are heavy horse, loaded down with man- and horse- armor, going to outflank and outrun light cavalry?

simple- by using the middle imperial army, whom had loads of cavalry- even the army at the time of diocletian has hundreds of thousands of cavalry in the empire, of all assorted types, and this is well after romes economic collapse.

3) Logistics: The Romans aren't able to attack Mongol logistics, because they have no supply lines, while Roman supply lines are vulnerable because horse is inherently faster than men on foot marching with armor. Also that the fact that any kind of collatoral damage upon cities, civilians, etc will be commited on Roman ground, since they won't get anywhere near Mongolia.

again, the point istn to striek mongolia, but to keep roman territory from beign damaged, which was th emiltiaries mandate to begin with- it just hapopend to often resul in an invasion, where it was both needed, and possible to do so- thats the reason Dacia was invaded, by Skythia wasnt

4) Scale: You remind me of elementary-school kids who held a bake sale to reduce the US national debt; no sense of scale. You remark on the speed of campaigning by mentioning Dacia, when Dacia was for the Mongols merely a stepping stone on an extended thousands mile campaign. You mention Mesopotamia when Halagu conquered northern India, Persia, Mesopotamia, and Syria in one go, basically replicating the feat of Alexander the Great in the opposite direction.

wonderful, it really is, thier achiements- but Rome is another beat alltogether then what the empires and kingdoms of the middle ages coudl throw together.- a well orginized, well funded state, based on the very primice of a grand well function military machine to continue the freedoms and embodyment of the state.

5) Siege: Inability to explain how pre-medieval Roman fortifications are unable to stand up against post-medieval siege weapons and the age of gunpowder.

the thread authoer said that the two sides were technolgically equivilent, or perhaps you forgot to read that aprt.

To which I'll add:

6) Biological warfare: The Mongols were known for biological warfare; they catapulted dead bodies and plague victims into city walls to speed up their disease and rates of attrition. Historically, the Mongols were responsible for the Black Death across Europe, which wiped out 1/3 of the population of Europe. The Romans are going to face epic manpower losses due to the plague.

how many fo those populations had hospitals, prctized santized surgery, or even were fanatics about keeping clean? -Europe during th emiddle ages was hardley a clean place- but you coudl expect to find most romans doing fine in a bathhouse, and whiel the mongol could could block out the overground aquaducts, they cant block out the below ground water supplies, such as springs, or wells that were just as useful for supplying water.

All to which you haven't stated ANY possible ways as to how the Romans would win. The Romans will outflank the Mongols how, exactly?

that woudl be atactic best left to Romans, wouldnt it- they seemed ot have done it enough when operating with horsemounted oppents

[quotes[/b] The Romans will attack the Mongols how, exactly, when they can't even catch up?

superior horses- no one will doubt the supremacy of the Iberian warhorse over a mongolian pony- even the arabs, whos sub-bree dof th e parthia warhorse whom the chinese used opted for Iberians when they were avavilble, and they became the standard upon which to breed warhorses upuntil the end of cavalry, in world war I

The Romans would siege exactly which Mongol cities? The Romans will ambush the Mongols how, exactly? Roman catapults are superior to cannon and trebuchet how, exactly? I see lots of claims and assumed assertion, but no justification. All you could produce was draw battle against the Huns, who, as I pointed out, weren't a steppe cavalry army, consisted of loosely unified barbarians, used different tactics, and had a much looser chain of command.

the author said that the two dsides were technolgically equivilent, jackass, so stop using your cannon argument





You're making the huge assumption that there would be actual survivors from the first battle. The Romans have heavy infantry, and maybe heavy cavalry, late era. If the Mongols win, fleeing Romans won't outrun men on horseback, and they'll get slaughtered while fleeing. In the unlikely scenario that the Mongols lose, the Romans can't pursue and harry them, because they can't catch up to cavalry. Remember, the Mongols were famous for slaughtering everybody and ensuring no survivors. They slaughtered entire armies, and even followed fleeing Kings thousands of miles across countries to ensure the complete destruction of their enemies. They slaughtered entire cities, and in fact left behind forces just in case there were survivors. After one incident of hearing of survivors hiding among corpses, the Mongols ordered from then on that the heads of corpses be cut off. The only survivors were usually men the Mongols wanted, or a select few that they allowed to flee to spread their tale of terror.[/QUOTE]

 

[FriendlyFire]

Let me point out soms things

1.Mongols also used a lot of mercanries and tribute armies
Chinese engineers, infantry, russian calvary, eurpean merc's. Eventually turkish muslim and indian troops as well.

2. Mongols were masterful at communication, logistics. Often advaning in eight columns which remained in contact with each other. They were able to react to any siutation. The level of co-ordination was very very advanced especially considering they were in enemy territory.

3. Mongols were excellent at foraging. (?) which means small logistical support lines. Able to function and live of the land. Large incursion and long staying power. There primary weakness was the HUGE number of horese that required grazing. Each Mounted mongol had around six horses which enable them to travel extremely fast.

4. Mongols generally avoid set piece battles.
They excelled at gureillia warfare, raiding and fought pitched battles where victory was assurred.

5. As with all calvary based army. Mongols dont fight well in forests and mountainous areas. The romans would make the most of these terrains. While plains would be much more advantagous to mongols calvary based army.
We left out the factor of NAVEL WARFARE. which the romans commanded

Once mongols got hold of enough skill soldiers/workers i can see mongols taking to the seas and challenging roman control.

 

[Jeff Yu]

superior horses- no one will doubt the supremacy of the Iberian warhorse over a mongolian pony- even the arabs, whos sub-bree dof th e parthia warhorse whom the chinese used opted for Iberians when they were avavilble, and they became the standard upon which to breed warhorses upuntil the end of cavalry, in world war I

This shows you don't know a damn thing about horses. The Arabian horse is a purebred horse originating from the Arabian peninsula, not a subbreed of the Parthian horse. The Chinese never used used the Parthian warhorse, they used horses that were bred in modern-day Uzbekistan (which, incidently, the Mongols control). They were known for sweating blood, which the neither the Arabian nor Parthian horse does. The Spanish warhorse breeds originates from the Arab invasions of Iberia, which introduced hotblooded horse breeds like the Arabian and the Barb. As in, the Arabs that invaded Iberia multiple centures after the fall of Rome.

simple- they wouldnt- bt they wouldnt be fighting on Roman territory either; thiers quite a bit of land between the russian steppe, and the nearest roman border.

Should the Roman army not be in Roman territory, quite simply, they'll be in trouble. An army any kind of distance from the Empire will have a long strung-out baggage train, largely unprotected, I might add. The Mongols, with their superior speed, can simply go around the army, and target the logistics. Result, starving Romans, and plundered Roman cities, while the Romans will have a hell of a time marching back in time. Remember, the pace of a march doesn't simply depend on the speed of the horse, or the existance of cavalry. A cavalry equipped army still has to march alongside their infantry. Warhorses can't keep up a steady trot carrying an armored man all day; they need rest too. The Mongols keept 4-5 extra horses per man, and they rotated horses so that they could keep going. The Mongols even slept and ate on the saddle. When need be, they would cut a vein from their horse's neck, and drink from it while riding. (Afterwards they would sew up the wound and switch horse).

simple- by using the middle imperial army, whom had loads of cavalry- even the army at the time of diocletian has hundreds of thousands of cavalry in the empire, of all assorted types, and this is well after romes economic collapse.

Again, how are inferior numbers of horse going to outflank superior numbers of more mobile horsemen? Simply repeating "they have cavalry" is not an argument.

the author said that the two dsides were technolgically equivilent, jackass, so stop using your cannon argument

At last, the troll reveals himself. When unable to rebut arguments, start flaming? What a sad state you've been reduced to. From claiming that Roman auxilia can take on any amount of Mongols to asking me to assume technological parity and nonexistent 3rd century unity to take on the historical Mongol hordes. What is this, historical affirmative action to aid the disadvantaged Romans? Learn to concede gracefully, son.

Well, here's the original post, quoted right here. In fact, he even thought that the Romans had superior technology (which they obviously didn't).

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.

how many fo those populations had hospitals, prctized santized surgery, or even were fanatics about keeping clean? -Europe during th emiddle ages was hardley a clean place- but you coudl expect to find most romans doing fine in a bathhouse, and whiel the mongol could could block out the overground aquaducts, they cant block out the below ground water supplies, such as springs, or wells that were just as useful for supplying water.

The Black Death would have wiped out a large population of the Empire, hygiene or no. Bathhouses or no, fact is plagues happened in Roman cities in multiple occasions. For example, Justinian's plague killed 10,000 people a day in Constantinople. Simple fact was, Europeans didn't develop an effective immunity to the Black Death. The historical Black death spread from Italy to England in a only a year, and to Russia in only three. It was one of the most contagious diseases in history, and in an empire with as extensive trade and sea networks as the Roman one, the disease will spread quickly, before it can be quarantined (due to the delay between infection and symptoms). Symptoms won't show up until maybe a week or two after infection, and by that time, thousands of infected people will have traveled to countless other cities in the empire. Juicy, densely populated cities are ideal for rapid disease spread. The Mongols knew about this, and deliberately engaged in biological warfare in order to infect and weaken their enemies.

 

[bewareofgnomes]

Well, here's the original post, quoted right here. In fact, he even thought that the Romans had superior technology (which they obviously didn't).

Actually that was me just knowing absolutely nothing about the mongols. I figured that since the mongols lived in yurts and ate horses and so on that they werent very smart. But I have learned otherwise and like xen am starting to get pissed off by the mongol supporters continually going back to "The mongols had Nukes!" I know they were 1000 years apart but stop using the damn technology arguement!

 

[stratego]

Actually that was me just knowing absolutely nothing about the mongols. I figured that since the mongols lived in yurts and ate horses and so on that they werent very smart. But I have learned otherwise and like xen am starting to get pissed off by the mongol supporters continually going back to "The mongols had Nukes!" I know they were 1000 years apart but stop using the damn technology arguement!

How would you take into account the tactics and strategies without taking into account the technology involved. All tactics are based on the manpower and technology you have. The romans formed their battle formations based on the technology they have. An army with straw shields would not be able to pull off manuevers like the "Tortoise," "The Orb" or "The Wedge." Likewise, the mongols wouldn not have been able to do what they did if their horses are not 25% larger than anyone elses and if they didn't have the highest range of crossbows of anyone.

You can see what happens in WWI (trench warfare) when the tactics are no aligned with the technology.

If you want the Mongols to carry out their tactics with ancient weapons, then of course they're going to lose because their army wasn't designed to do so. If you want the Romans to fight using post medieval weapons, they're not going to be able to use them effectively either.

I don't see how any arguments for the Mongols are illegitimate unless the point of this thread was to get a bunch of people to say "The Roman will win."

 

[Princeps]

All we know is that armies of the rome, and the riders of mongols. Were the most deadly armies that had ever walked on the face of the earth...

 

[pawpaw]

In a battle between roman legionaries and mongol horseman the winner would be---drum roll please...............................................................................

the french imperial guard :suicide:

 

[FriendlyFire]

"The mongols had Nukes!"

lololol

 

[Xen]

@Jeef Yiu

first off, "old man" learn to get your fact straight- such as you entiure technology bull****- take a look at how the authero fthe thread defined the argument, before you spout off your tech superioty bull****- of course the romans couldt have taken on 13th centuryt tech- but your the idiot who keeps forgettign the terms of engagement for this argument

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.

now then- your little point about horses? complete bull****- the Iberian horse has a history stretghing back before writting language was introduced intot eh area, where the records are shard sof pottery showing people riding horses; the parthian was a sub-bree dof the arbain, nto the other way around, and the chinese certianlyl enjoyed them when an expeditionary returned with the breed back from what was a massive expedition to the west.

now then your point about cavalry- cof course cavalry aslone wont win it; but if the Roman army, after a centurt of civli war, barbarian invasion, plague, famine,a dn totoal economic collapse can have as many troops as recorded in the notitia didginatum (I assume youve at least heard of that) then the armies of the 3rd century were both enourmus, and terribly effective geneocide machines.

as for your poitn abour logisitcs, and a roman army being 'in trouble" outside its own territory- ha, and double ha- another wonderful gift from those trash pits on hadrians wall, and other sites alogn the Roman frontir zones was that we know that Roman units regurally upwards of 50 miles outside roman territory, and we have the requisition forms for things like wine to proove it.

I havet botherd to read the rest of your little statemtn- your only provokign me, and I've already had enough bans placed on me from scum like you.

Moderator Action: Xen, you're out of line. Warned. - XIII
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Chieftess]

I think this what-if scenario would need to assume a few things first..

Assume that the Romans survived the Huns, Visigoths, etc.
Assume that the Romans survived the Arabians.
Assume that Rome had advanced in technology by the time the Mongols came. (which would be nearly 1000 years later).

Legions would have been long gone, and replaced with some other garrisoning type unit (like pikemen). The Romans knew they couldn't expand anymore with currect technology, which is why they divided Rome and Byzantine. The "glory days" of the Roman Empire might've been a distant memory for the people of 12th-14th century Rome.

If Rome relied on foot troops (maybe more like medival infantry), the Mongolian tactics would literally run circles around them. The Mongolians would have won.

However, consider this. The Italians had some of the finest armorers in the middle ages. The Mongols came to Europe as the peak of the Middle Ages was nearing. (I saw on a show on the History Channel - Conquest, which often recreates ancient battles - where they showed how the Italians made their armor).

The Romans, given that technology, could have provided enough protecting to defend against the Mongols. It could probably be a stalemate.

 

[Gagliaudo]

@Chieftness: really good, reasonable (and SYNTHETIC ) 'what-if' considerations

 

[eyrei]

Moderator Action: The insults are going to end now. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Gagliaudo]

... I apologize... I'll never write "SYNTHET*C" any more...

 

[Shaihulud]

Hey if Rome had survived into the 21th century would they have beaten USA too? Considering if they have technology parity of course . Sort of nonsensical argument. Alright from reading this thread I assumed the reasons why the mongols won is technological superiority and training, I mean they have a huge horse army, superior weaponry and really motivated soldiers not to mention good commanders. This all contribute to mongols victory over romans, even with my limited understanding of mediviel warfare even I can see how a large calvary force is superior to an equal heavy infantry force.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

I see little value in continuing this hypothetical debate. I was content to leave it alone, but as expected, it could only end this way...

Closed.