Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PubFather
.
Any Roman/Mongol war depends on the ability of the commanders - Romans with Varus would die, with Julies Caesar would find a way. same with the mongols.
Seige warfare - where it would have come down to- would have been much more equal. The Romans were masters at seiges - and imho would have bled the Mongols dry
|
Ha! Have you ever study the wars of China during the Roman times? The level of sophistication of the artillery were way ahead what the Romans had. And there were long sieges and short sieges waged in China.
If you study Caesar's invasion of Gaul and the Battle against Vertingrotix(sp?) He made a fatal mistake and that is letting an enemy force sandwich his forces between an anvil (the fortress) and the hammer (the outside enemy force). It was only through sheer stupidity of the commanders of the enemy forces that allowed Caesar to win. Against the Mongols, his mistake would have led Caesar and his forces to horse fodder.
By the way, the Mongols were masters of siege warfare. Ever study the siege of Baghdad and the siege of some European city in Eastern Europe. One of their favorite tactics was to cut off the heads of horses, enemy soldiers, and throw them back inside in the fortress. That way, they would spread disease among the defenders of the fortress. The Mongols were one of the early pioneers of bio warfare.
Besides, siege forces is no match for manuever forces because you need a steady stream of supply to keep your army fed, clothed, free from disease, sanitised, etc. Manuever forces would cut off the LOCs of the sieging force.