Quote:
Originally Posted by deadkenny
They were, for the most part, far more 'advanced' in the 1240's than the (Western) Roman Empire had been - certainly in terms of military 'hardware'. Hungarian or Polish 'knights' from 1240 would have 'crushed' a Roman legion, as they would have crushed just about any infantry short of a disiplined pike carrying formation. The 'core' of the (Western) Roman Empire military for centuries was the shortshort wielding infantry in 'loose' formation. They were fortunate in that they didn't have to face many foes with good heavy cavalry. The Romans did well against the spear carrying infantry of the Hellenistic world in the east, and the even 'looser' barbarian hordes of the north and west. However it was exactly those opponents with good cavalry (e.g. Parthians, Huns) that they struggled against.
|
I dissagree, Rome sacked the parthian capitol several times and took Armenia and mesopotamia form them. The manipulative legion was not a loose formation, although it was flexible. While the gladius was the real killing tool of the romans, it was not the only tool. The Legions had a large number of slingers an archers as well as cavalry, javlainers, and engineers. in one repsect the Mongols were like the Romans. They borrowed technology without batting an eye. the Gladius or Gladius Hispania came from Gual, the slingers from Greece, they used composite bows and adpated the cavalry tactics of the Huns and other proto-turkish tribes. The Pilum could also due duty as a pike, and onc einside the legiosn formation the gladius/scutum combo would be like a glock and bowie knife vs a bolt action 30-06 in close quaters fight.
Vs a Hungarian force Rome would have smashed the kights into peices. Heavy cavalry is a short ranged shock weapon fit only for use inside of a combined arms formation. Roman legions could out march any cavalry force in the world expcet the mongols, and could run knights to ground and set up seiges, where Rome almost never lost.
The heavy cavalry faield agaist the Muslims, failed agaist the Mongols and later faield agaisnt the infantry. Its rise to prominance was due more to the politcal nature of Europe than any military advantage.
Quote:
|
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
|
not just open spaces. Rome with a massive merchant marine (strategic mobility) and its critical population and wealth centers clustered in easily defensable (vs cavalry) locations along the coast, and sheer size that required ocean going capabilities to move quickly could have pinned the Mongols down via seige warfare. Asong as Rome could keep the horsemen out of Italy, Greece, Egypt, Spain, and Judea she would eventually win. The parts of the empire most vulnerable to the Mongols were the elast vaualbe to the Romans. One has only to look at the Empires resilency in the face of wave after wave of invasion taking away large but unimportant portions of the empire. it wasn't until the tax and legion systems collapsed that Italy felt the permament heel of the invaders boot.