Big K

on an open battlefield surely Mongols will win the day = mobility + range + flexibility +

it has been long ago proved by others that the mobility is superior than armor i think.

but in a urban fight short roman swords and armor is a huge advantage for romans i think.

__________________
When i say, there will be no effect but i am not willing to remain silent.
-Fuzuli

zraver

The pilum was effective vs cavalry, perhaps not as effective as Hoplite pikes or macadonian formations of the swiss but it was effective.

Also (albiet from wiki)

Vegetius, in his work De Re Militari, wrote:

As to the missile weapons of the infantry, they were javelins headed with a triangular sharp iron, eleven inches or a foot long, and were called piles. When once fixed in the shield it was impossible to draw them out, and when thrown with force and skill, they penetrated the cuirass without difficulty.[2]

And later in the same work:

They had likewise two other javelins, the largest of which was composed of a staff five feet and a half long and a triangular head of iron nine inches long. This was formerly called the pilum, but now it is known by the name of spiculum. The soldiers were particularly exercised in the use of this weapon, because when thrown with force and skill it often penetrated the shields of the foot and the cuirasses of the horse.[3]

what this amounts two is directly before the knights impact they will be showered by a swarm of javalins that will do very bad things to 12 century horse flesh and mail clad knights. The romans would also have sown caltrops in front of them. The front ranks will most likely go down cuasig following ranks to trample and probalby trip over them breaking the peak momentum of the charge. Also given the infantry's tendancy to place sheild to back and push the sheer weight of the charge would probalby break its lances and the knights would collide with the legionares who would own the knights in close combat. Heavy cav is a one shot weapon.

chankya

Has anyone ever played Rome:Total War ? It's a fascinating game and gives you rather broad understanding of the tactical picture and options before a Roman commander.

I mention it because you'd get a better understanding of what options you had with a infantry centric army against a cavalry centric army(like carthage)

__________________
"Of all the manifestations of power, restraint impresses men the most." - Thucydides

zraver

The problems are the 5 types of cavalry being discussed 1 Non stirrup horse archer, non stirrup heavy, stirrup horse archer (general), stirrupped heavy cav, mongol. The tactics dictated by each are very different.

vs heavy cav caltrops and javalin swarms can break the energy of the charge right before impact.

vs horse archers the legions have issues but can surmount the threat ie Parthia

vs the mongols the situation gets sticky.

I don't think anyone doubtrs that the onteroior of the empire would fall before the Mongols with ease. The mongols with their massive remudas are simply to fast during the peak campign season to be cuaght and pinned. Like wise along the coast and in non-hore terain the legions can out race the horse or pick the winning battlefeild.

Sudedei vs Ceaser or Scipio none of them are going to fight on the feild picked by the others until they feel sure they can fight there effectively..

deadkenny

Well ‘effective vs cavalry’ is one thing, but you initially stated:
Clearly a short throwing spear with a bendable iron end was completely Ineffective as a ‘pike’.

But this is in reference to Roman contemporaries, NOT against 13th century armour.

Now you’re assuming that the Romans would have constructed some sort of ‘field fortifications’. To have any chance in this scenario they would certainly have to, because clearly the ‘pilum’ and shortsword would not have protected them. Further, disciplined heavy cavalry is not a ‘one shot’ weapon. It is entirely capable of reforming and charging repeatedly.

ExNavyAmerican

Advantages of Rome are:

1. Superior siege weapons. (i.e. the Ballisti, and the trebuchet)

2. Superior armor. Roman soldiers wore both scaled, and chain mail armor. Their armor was so heavy that they were a lot like dismounted knights of the middle ages.

3. Fighting on their own back yard. Though this could be normally considered a disadvantage; but in the ancient times, when the other guys' backyard is three thousand miles away, this could be an advantage to the defender. Also considering the Romans could easily get reinforcements.

4. The Imperial road network. They were able to move a large numer of troops in a very short time frame.

5. Their sheer size. The Mongols would have been hard pressed to take all of the Empire.

6. Terrain. The Roman Empire, in the West anyway, was mountainous, and heavily forested.

7. Roman ability to adapt. Upon seeing a new enemy that fought differently, and who had superior flexibility on the battlefield would have caused the Romans to choose the battlefield carefully.

8. The Roman legion. The legion was a diverse fighting force. At the empire's height, during the time of Caesar Augustus, a legion contained 6,000 swordsmen, and an equal number of auxillary troops. The Troops contained several thousand professional calvary, and archers.

9. The testudo. This formation was an example of a human tank. Romans, with their 6-foot shields, would form up close-knit, and advance on the enemy; pausing only to completely close up when archers attacked.

And one might note one more thing. When the Huns invaded the empire in the 5th century, the Goths sided with the Romans against them because the Huns were the common enemy of the Goths, and the Romans. The combined army defeated the Huns at Chalons-Sur-Marne in 451.

__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
- Thomas Jefferson

zraver

Roman Legionaires carried wooden spikes and caltrops as part of thier feild kit. Notamlyl used for setting up thier camp defenses they could and would be presse dinto service vs enemies who relied on the charge. Further based on Hungarian exploits vs the Mongols, they were not disciplined, a good rea don this is the DEvils Horsemen by James Chambers

Triple C

The Mongols did, however, successfully march into Korea.

__________________
What benefits the body is called medicine; what benefits the soul, discipline.
-Augustine of Hippo

zraver

Not really, at least 6 seperate campaigns that saw a Mongol feild commander killed in battle, an unending insurgency and finally a peace treaty that lef tthe realm as tribute state but still not offically part of the Mongol Empire.

deadkenny

Agreed, the Romans did regularly construct 'field fortifications', usually at the end of the day's march. However, the discussion is drifting further and further from the original point I was making, which was that the Roman weapons and fighting formations were not strong against cavalry opponents. This also raises the key point that a cavalry force can choose the time and place of battle against an infantry opponent. So, for example, if the Romans had constructed field fortifications - pits / stakes etc. - the Hungarians could simply have waited for the Romans to (literally) 'pull up stakes' and move before attacking. If the Romans don't move, then the Hungarians could simply have 'trapped' the Romans in the 'middle of nowhere' anytime they chose to.

I'm not sure that fighting against the Mongols would put the Hungarians, or other Europeans for that matter, in the best light. They would have been fighting a superior cavalry force using tactics that were not the norm in Europe. Further, the coordination of feudal cavalry depended alot on the commander. If he was competent, and universally recognized as having authority (e.g. the king) then orders would be obeyed. If the commander was 'appointed', and his authority not recognized / accepted, then you end up with behaviour like the French at Agincourt.

Alamgir

Can anyone recommend any good books on the Mongols / Genghis Khan? If anyone has read Justin Marozzi's book on Tamerlane then that is the kind of style im looking for. Something that has depth but yet flows well and can be read by both those with an academic or just a casual interest.

__________________

xerxes

^^^

could u tell us the name of Justin Marozzi's book??

I know a website that might really intrest you, enjoy ...

Mongole Empire

The Mongol Khâns & the Oghullar of Rum

TURKS

The Ottoman Sultans of Turkey & Successors in Romania

Rome

Rome and Romania, Roman Emperors, Byzantine Emperors, etc.

Islam

Islam

Moghul

Indian, Chinese, & Japanese Emperors

india, japan and China

Indian, Chinese, & Japanese Emperors

__________________
If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery of gunpowder with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science, and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind. - Edward Gibbon

Alamgir

Thanks bro for the websites. But if you know the names of any good printed books on the Mongols please let me know.

The book by Justin Marozzi is called 'Tamerlane: Sword of Islam - Conqueror of the World'. Its a good book and id recommend it to anyone with an interest in history.

zraver

The Devils Horsemen, the Mongol Invasion of Europe by James Chambers

I loved this book one of the best historical sources I've bought recently found in at Hastings in the bargain rack for $5

Big K

i didnt checked others but the Ottoman side of this site is very absurd and ridiculous.

this is not a valuable source