scotsboyuk

As far as I am aware the European part of the Roman Empire was larger than the Asian part.

__________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC

sparten

IIRC, the European Part is larger if you7 include Turkey in it. It is smaller if you don't. Also the exact extent of Arabia Petra is not known.

__________________
"Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

kNikS

Of course, I never denied that.

__________________
For King and Fatherland ~ Freedom or Death

scotsboyuk

The European part is larger based solely on European territories. If you look at the territory Rome is commonly said to have held the largest single part is European. It should also be noted that the European part of the Roman Empire remained relatively static once territory had been acquired. The Asian part of the Roman Empire was subject to territorial changes over the centuries, which means that the Asian part of the Roman Empire was probably never bigger than the European part at any single given point.

sparten

True to a certain extent, but that was mainly in what is now Iraq.
The Gallic Empire also caused the European territories to reduce.

scotsboyuk

The Western Roman Empire's European territories were largely the same from the 1st century A.D. until the 5th century A.D. After that then one is looking at the Eastern Roman Empire and certainly over time it's Asian and African territories did encompass more than its European territories.

gunnut

Ah...please excuse my poor expression My knowledge of that period is fuzzy at best, ignorant at worst.

IDonT

You guys are getting way off topic.

But in terms of military system, a Rome vs Parthia is very interesting and worth discussing.

Rome (infantry based army) vs Parthia (a Cavalry based army)

The Parthian armies included two types of cavalry: the heavily-armed and armoured cataphracts and light brigades of mounted archers. For the Romans, who relied on heavy infantry, the Parthians were hard to defeat, as the cavalry was much faster and more mobile. On the other hand, the Parthians found it difficult to occupy conquered areas as they were unskilled in siege warfare. Because of these weaknesses, neither the Romans nor the Parthians were able to completely defeat each other

Triple C

I agree with everything about the Mongol's tactical prowess except for their individual weapons' superiority. The composite bow had been used in the stepp for centuries, yet no other nomad remotely approached the magnititude of Mongol suscess. Futhermore few if any primary or secondary resources suggest that their bows penetrated armor well. Instead the accounts that I have read suggest hand to hand fighting still account for the majority of the casualties and arrors were used in a fire superiority role.

The success of the Mongol bow is not my object of dispute; it is the precise detail that it could penetrate armor that is. Projectile weapons don't need to penetrate armor in order to be successful; even the heavy infantry is very exposed to dense arrow fire because a large part of his body is uncovered. For example, his face, arms and legs. The Roman account during the Battle of Carhae in my opinion actually proves that arrows don't need to penetrate armor to be effective, since it focused on how arrows could wound the unarmored part of the legionaire's body. While a heavy cavalry soldier is extremely well protected in his person, futhermore, the arrow could kill his horse, which means he both loses his mobility takes a fall from a height.

BTW I can almost recall a source about the battle between the Teutonic Knights and the Mongols, in which it states that the Mongols shot up the knights by focuses fire on their horses. Surely if the arrows could penetrate armor as advertised the other more lethal target could've been choosed.

Triple C

It is also a myth that the Mongols were a pure light cavalry force. Latter Mongols deployed heavy infantry in massive numbers when the terrain favors the foot over the horse, evident in their campaigns against Korea, Japan and Vietnam. They also always have a heavy cavalry contigent composed of their elite kept at hand as a tactical reserve, deployed in the final charge at a critical time against oppsition properly prepared and softened.

A frighteningly effective force the Mongols were.

IDonT

The world before the Mongol conquest

Count the contries that they conquered.



At Genghis Khan's death



At its height



Division

sparten

Why don't you go and ask the people who ruled those places how the Mongols were?

Cavalry was their forte. Sure they developed Heavy Infantry, but it was not that suceesful was it. At Ayn Jalut (granted that was still mostly Cav) Homs, or at Kyushu, wher they proved to be no match for a little known military organization calling itself the Samurai.

Triple C

Sure, the Mongols were much better at cavalry fighting then infantry battles, but both of the Japanese campaigns were opposed amphibious landings. The Mongols also ran into Taiphoons, but it never ceases to amaze me as to why no one warned them of the Taiphoon season, since they deployed a large number of Chinese and Korean sailors.

sparten

THe reason IIRC was surprise. The Japanese did not expect a landing until later, only the Samurai expected one. And lets remember when the "Divine Wind" showed up they had already failed in their attemptd to land.

Officer of Engineers

Sparten,

Your info is wrong. The Mongols bested the Samurai. In the 1st attempt, the Mongols landed an army that simply ignored the Samurai's dueling warfare and used mass warfare. In the 2nd attempt, the Japanese prevented the landing by using small boats to harrass the Mongols before they could land and then the Divine Wind took them.

__________________
Chimo