Quote:
Originally Posted by zraver
10,000 men vs armies of 50,000+ legionares and support troops. I don't think so.
1-10,000 men is not enough to affec tthe reduction of the Roman cities and centers of gravity.
2- Roma has superior strategic mobility along the coast, and untouchable stragtic depth in North Africa, Greece (Thermopylae anyone), Britian, Spain and Italy, Scicily, sardina, Corsica etc. None of these areas will sustain a horse army for long.
3- Rome had great commanders every bity as good as Sudedei namely Scipio, Julius Ceaser, Maximus etc.
4- Roman discipline and professional standards were every bit as high as the Mongols
5- No one beat Rome when it came to copying new technologies and ideas.
6- Rome knew its own Terrain and the road system made the legiosn nearly as fast as the Tumen overland.
7- in the logn run the very durable legion could outmarch a Tumen once the Mongols remuda was worn down through loses or campaigning.
|
Obviously you forgot how good the Chinese armies were when facing against the Mongols. They were every bit as professional and disciplined as the Romans and they had far superior weaponry and their logistic chains was not something to sneer at. The Chinese did have good commanders but what did them in was that the Mongols totally defeated the Chinese decision cycle and rendered any capacity to learn from defeats. The Mongols rarely ever gave their enemies to learn from mistakes. Romans were victorious over the longer run because they had the luxury of learning their mistakes and applying their lessons to the next battle or campaign. When Romans face against the Mongols, the Romans won't have time to learn their mistakes.