Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Blademaster
No it did not. It was under a different vanguard, the Germanic Tribes who were nowhere near the Romans. They just wanted the title of the Roman in order to justify their rule over the rest of Europe and hope to use the brand name to cower other enemies but it wasn't even enough.
Guys when you compare Romans to Mongols, you are basically comparing apples and oranges. They are in entirely different contexts. Remember the Romans could not survive the times during the 500s and from on. Therefore, we can't say if they are able to adopt the new technologies or methods during the 1000s.
Yes the Romans were able to defeat the Parthians on several occasions but on several occasions the Parthians were able to defeat the Romans on several occasions and the Parthians were no way near the level of sophistication and mastery of cavalry warfare exhibited by the Mongol horse archers. Besides The romans never had to face such numerical odds as the Mongols' enemies did.
|
You are right about comparisons being apples and oranges. It's more like simulation fights involving different species in that Animal Planet progam.
But I'd credit Romans for being far more sophisticated than Mongols. Romans military prowess(like Greek) evolved over a few centuries. IMO, they would have adapted to gunpowder really well(in their glory days, would they have remained static?). Further, Spaniards, Italians, Portugese and even French to a certain extent were the inheritors of the "Roman way". These mutations of Roman empire went on to create their own vast empires.
When we talk about Romans without gunpowder, we should also in the same vein talk about Mongols without horses. Then it is fair comparison.