retaxis

Song and Jin = China.
Korea? they lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers over a tribute nation.

Okay lets see....Did they conquer the South East Asian empires? no
Japan? no the Samurai made mince meat out of the first fleet of invaders.
Vietnam? they got their ass sent back packing.
India? no
Other eastern nations? Indonesia? phillipines? malaysia? no

Their bows were the most powerful bows at that period. They could shoot far further with devasting impact. Even the Chinese crossbow could not even match their recurve bows which a much older version used by Parthia wrecked the romans in the battle of carrhae where 40000+ romans were all slaughtered by 9000 parthian horse archers with barely any loses on parthian side.

Now take that legion and compare it with a much more terrifying, disciplined, nomadic horsemen army(whom have spent most of their life riding on a horse and hunting with their recurve bows) and with huge arsenals of the most advanced siege weaponry of that time and lets not even talk about the death rates of the romans. It would be like a lion fighting a dog. Over before you know it.

Officer of Engineers

Horse Puckey!

Chinese crossbow draw weight - 38kgs
Mongol draw weight - 18kgs at 50cms

And the ONLY way the Mongols could beat the Romans is that the Romans come out and fight instead of staying behind their engineering works.

__________________
Chimo

troung

And they didn't conquer America or Ireland.

I'll not bring up the Mughal conquest of India - Turko-Mongol state under Babur who was related to GK.

And even then the Mongols took - Georgia, Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, China, Korea, half of Turkey, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Manchuria, Tibet, East Turkestan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Iran and Iraq. Most of which were a lot more vital an important then say Malaysia, Japan or the Philippines on the basis of the world trade routes at the time.

Ten to one - they would have fled and hoped to have split of an enemy army.

========
And the "scarf wearing middle eastern people", better said the Turkic elites who ran the Middle East and Central Asia, were hardly push overs.

================
Mohi.

__________________
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

Blademaster

Which history proved that can be defeated by a tactile mobile army due to one thing: Logistics. Those Romans would be cut off from their LoCs and supply lines.

One interesting question to ask is how would the Romans made effective use of the technological advances made up to the 1300s such as the invention of a saddle with the thingy I can't recall, crossbows, newer catapult designs, etc.

Officer of Engineers

You mean like Hannibal? Logistics in those days meant water and farmland. If you've got stores, you can hold up. LOCs meant a relieving army.

Kansas Bear

Which means nothing. Each battle is won on its own merits.

Shall you realize that Kitboga's own arrogance caused his downfall?

"Kitbuka(Kitboga) was in the Bekaa Valley when he learned that the Mamluks had gone into Syria. He considered a retreat but ultimately decided to meet them." --'Warriors of the Steppe", by Hildinger, p163.

lwarmonger

However those were rump states. The Mongol empire fell apart after its founder died, and each of those remaining rump states either assimilated in or were brushed aside by culturally or technologically superior adversaries. The Timerids acquired quite a few Persian characteristics and then collapsed to the Turkic and Persian peoples within, the Crimean state was an off and on Ottoman satellite, and derived much of its population and government from Tatars (Turkic peoples) not Mongols, and while the Golden Horde was one of the most pure Mongol states outside of Mongolia it was only maintained over any substantial period of time over lightly populated steppes (with a population that was largely Mongol... the non-Mongol fringes were unstable to say the least).

I stand by my assertion that if the Mongol empire had conquered the Roman Empire it would have been assimilated or destroyed within a hundred years.

lwarmonger

Actually sir, I think this depends on which time period of the Empire we are talking about. Mid-2nd century and beyond would see a weakening Roman army and state, but vastly superior fortifications throughout the Empire (which barring civil war would suffice to keep the Mongols contained). Prior to that however, the cities were defended largely by the legions, not fortifications (although the legions themselves were capable engineers they were more offensive than defensive, erecting fortifications in enemy territory to enable them to extend their control). So prior to the 2nd century the Romans would have to come out and fight because the Mongol horse archers would move too fast to allow the Romans to fortify their cities.

retaxis

What i find amusing is the amount of brainwashing the euro media has done to the people. Thinking a primitive army of soldiers could compare with a medieval titan. Romans were average fighters. they had their fair share of loses and triumphs e.g defeating carthage but getting sacked and destroyed multiple times as well by other empires. The mongols however conquered an area much larger, 95% of the time easily defeated their opponents whether they are outnumbered or not. How could a small empire over a thousand years old compare with the empire of genghis khan?

And its pretty funny to think that the romans had greater technology then the mongols. We all know that the Jin and Song dynasty of China at that time were the most advanced nations in the world and when they fell after a long war, they passed their explosives and other siege weapons to the mongols.

A better discussion would be a war between roman empire vs the Han empire of China which is during the same period.

Officer of Engineers

Son, I strongly suggest you shut the f*ck up right now. We're no amateurs here. A lot of us have lead men through combat. We know what works and what doesn't. You sure the hell don't. I know EXACTLY what the Mongol strength was - their ability to break up formations. I also know EXACTLY what the Roman strength was - their ability to KEEP formation. It remains a debate whether Mongol discipline can overcome Roman discipline ... and you ain't the one to comment on that because thus far, YOU'VE GOT ALL YOUR FACTS WRONG!

aaron82

Mongols would win easily.

Technology, superior training e.g countless years on horseback and ranging, better weaponry and the ability to recruit anyone.

aaron82

hi can you explain?

troung

Those were still powerful states.

Crimea was a successor state to the Golden Horde. It was a Turko-Mongol state, led by a successor of GK. The majority Golden Horde's Turko-Mongol population did remain steppe based, but they ruled over/extorted settled peoples and taxed trade routes. Maintaining themselves on the steppe had numerous advantages.

And BTW the Golden Horde was set up by around four thousand Mongol officers leading over one hundred thousand Kipchak Turks. Steppe empires operated in a similar form, bringing in different tribal groups.

As a whole the empire lasted until 1260 and had four more Great Khans - Ogodei, Guyuk, Mangu and Kubalia/Arik Boke (their dispute was the final break). Mongol expansion picked up pace with GK's death - he was operating a traditional "outer frontier policy" (extortion) on his death they really pushed towards empire and invaded Europe, the Middle East, finished off the Jin and took the Song.

The Timurids were finally kicked out of Central Asia by the Turko-Mongolian Uzbeks - led by Mohammad Shaybani - descendant of GK through Shayban the fifth son of Jochi - who in part used the political claim of the Timurids not being proper descendants of GK.

lwarmonger

However they had a relatively shallow base, and had assimilated substantially.

If I recall correctly (I'm at Ft Sill right now and have limited time to verify facts) the Crimea broke away from the Golden Horde, however it wasn't really a successor state in the sense that I would use the term (it filled the gap created by the Golden Horde's collapse, I don't think it was of the Golden Horde though).

I stand corrected, however Mongol rule over the Mediterranian would run into terrain problems and suffer from a severe lack of manpower (their being no nomads to co-opt). I think that a situation somewhat similar to what happened to the Mongols in China would have developed.

So the Mongol Empire as a unified whole lasted about what? Sixty years? A bit less if you only count it as an empire after they had conquered China?

I think they had serious internal problems in addition to the Uzbeks as well that contributed to their fall. The turkic tribes on their western border scented weakness and began launching increasingly effective attacks.

Blademaster

Stores can only last for so long. Yes if you have water and farmland you are fine but what happens when the Mongols go on raids and kill all the farmers. History has proven that Mongols will kill farmers and destroy farming equipment as part of the overall strategy to starve out the opposing army.