Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Maximus
IMHO if the Mongols & the Romans came face to face on a battlefield the result would be a stand-off.
Since, Roman army would be majorly heavy infantry, they would lack the speed to chase down the Mongol Cavalry Archers. On the other hand Mongol Cavalry Archers would be unable to inflict much damage to the Roman Infantry, because of the armour and the shields.
Moreover, Mongols also lacked any prowess in seige technologies to take care of slow moving Roman Infantry, while the Romans had Onagers, Catapults and Ballistae, which would only inflict some damage to the fast moving Mongols.
A winner of any battle or war has a decisive edge over his adversary. In this case there is none.
Eventually, location & logistics would decide the fate of such a battle.
|
You need to re-check your history.
1.) Roman tower sheild, armor, and the testudo cannot stop a recurved bow. According to Plutarch at the battle of Carrhae: "Parthian arrows nail their hands to their sheilds." 10,000 cavalry defeated 40,000 army that included 7 Legions. Only after when Parthia was politically weak that Rome, under Trajan, made its greatest incursion east. So yes, Mongol composite recurve bow will defeat the testudo.
2.) The Mongols have more advance seige weapons, thanks to the Chinese. Afterall, how else could they have laid seige to the hundreds of Chinese, Arabian, and Russian cities.
Rome do not stand a chance against a force that is 1,000 years ahead of them in tactics and technology. Rome could not even defeat the Parthia, which uses the same horse-archer/heavy cavalry combo. What hope could they have against the Mongols which uses the same combo but weilded it with discipline, stirrups, more powerful bows, and superior generals.