exnavyamerican,
Quote:
|
That seems to me to e the greatest problem; they may have had Chinese siege experts, ut it would have been extremely tricky to get them from China to Asia Minor, Dacia, or Palestine.
|
didn't stop the mongols from razing numerous persian and caliphate cities to the ground. the mongols WERE stopped in their second try against hungary, i believe, but roman fortifications didn't match that of the medieval castles.
as for manpower, i suppose it depends on the period of time you're talking about. rome had some difficulty replacing the 25,000 men lost at teutoberg forest, for example.
and unlike the case of hannibal, where he tried to unsuccessfully win roman vassals and cities to his side...the mongols would have razed them all. that would no doubt cut into the manpower base...
regarding
Quote:
|
The Celts were able to drive the Romans from Britain only after centuries of the Romans dominating the island, and they were only driven from it at the end of their life.
|
not just celts in britain, but the ones on the european continent. prior to the carthiginians, these celts were known as the greatest threat to rome, having captured rome before.
finally, it looks to me that the strongest argument against the mongols here would probably be the environment. mongols traditionally did well in wide-open spaces, where their horse cavalry and archers could easily beat the opposition. however, in wooded areas (where infantry is far better), they did not do very well at all...and infantry was rome's strength. i don't think it would have been a problem of bringing/building seige weapons, as the mongols did use seige weapons against baghdad IIRC.