Mongol Empire vs. Roman Empire - Page 6

gilgamesh · 06-18-2006, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maximus

There were no Romans in the 12th Century.

But the Roman empire continued. Frederick Barbarosa, Holy Roman Emperor.

Gibbons book:
http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/home.html

Romans + Gunpowder = We'd still be speaking latin. Come to think of it, we still live like Romans in many ways.

Blademaster · 06-18-2006, 01:35 AM

No it did not. It was under a different vanguard, the Germanic Tribes who were nowhere near the Romans. They just wanted the title of the Roman in order to justify their rule over the rest of Europe and hope to use the brand name to cower other enemies but it wasn't even enough.

Guys when you compare Romans to Mongols, you are basically comparing apples and oranges. They are in entirely different contexts. Remember the Romans could not survive the times during the 500s and from on. Therefore, we can't say if they are able to adopt the new technologies or methods during the 1000s.

Yes the Romans were able to defeat the Parthians on several occasions but on several occasions the Parthians were able to defeat the Romans on several occasions and the Parthians were no way near the level of sophistication and mastery of cavalry warfare exhibited by the Mongol horse archers. Besides The romans never had to face such numerical odds as the Mongols' enemies did.

gilgamesh · 06-18-2006, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blademaster

No it did not. It was under a different vanguard, the Germanic Tribes who were nowhere near the Romans. They just wanted the title of the Roman in order to justify their rule over the rest of Europe and hope to use the brand name to cower other enemies but it wasn't even enough.

Guys when you compare Romans to Mongols, you are basically comparing apples and oranges. They are in entirely different contexts. Remember the Romans could not survive the times during the 500s and from on. Therefore, we can't say if they are able to adopt the new technologies or methods during the 1000s.

Yes the Romans were able to defeat the Parthians on several occasions but on several occasions the Parthians were able to defeat the Romans on several occasions and the Parthians were no way near the level of sophistication and mastery of cavalry warfare exhibited by the Mongol horse archers. Besides The romans never had to face such numerical odds as the Mongols' enemies did.

You are right about comparisons being apples and oranges. It's more like simulation fights involving different species in that Animal Planet progam.

But I'd credit Romans for being far more sophisticated than Mongols. Romans military prowess(like Greek) evolved over a few centuries. IMO, they would have adapted to gunpowder really well(in their glory days, would they have remained static?). Further, Spaniards, Italians, Portugese and even French to a certain extent were the inheritors of the "Roman way". These mutations of Roman empire went on to create their own vast empires.

When we talk about Romans without gunpowder, we should also in the same vein talk about Mongols without horses. Then it is fair comparison.

Maximus · 06-18-2006, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gilgamesh

But the Roman empire continued. Frederick Barbarosa, Holy Roman Emperor.

Gibbons book:
http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/home.html

Romans + Gunpowder = We'd still be speaking latin. Come to think of it, we still live like Romans in many ways.

The Holy Roman Empire was not Roman at all.

The Roman Empire was divided into two parts by Emperor Constantine in 4-5 centuries AD - The Western Roman Empire with its capital at Rome and The Eastern Roman Empire with its capital at Constantinople(known as Istanbul today).

The Western Empire fell around the 5th Century, while The Eastern Empire which came to be later known as Byzantine Empire continued till 12th Century until the Turks beseiged Constantinople.

The Eastern Roman Empire is a very good example that an empire would adapt to changing warfare methods, since most of its military was Cavalry based, with Byzantine Cataphracts being the most famous. They also relied heavily on Cavalry Archers.

So had the Western Roman Empire survived till the 13th Century, beyond a doubt, it would have kicked the Mongol ass.

IDonT · 06-19-2006, 16:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maximus

There were no Romans in the 12th Century.

Do you think had the empire survived till the 12th Century, the Roman military would have abstained from including Archers & cavalry in their ranks, and making use of seige weaponary.

That is were you and I had a miscommunication.
I was trying to say: Mongols - 1200 years of technology - discipline + more sedentary lifestyle = Parthian.

The Roman style infantry warfare could never best the Parthians, even outnumbering them 4 to 1.

Maximus · 06-20-2006, 13:32 PM

I understand your point. But any great empire would survive for centuries based on 2 things: good governance & good military.

For the western roman empire to survive till the 12th Century, a good military was just absolultely required. Because that would have helped it survive from Moslem Invasions of 9th & 10th Century, & several other viking & other barbarian invasions.

It is not hard to notice that Roman empire collapsed when the military was at its weakest. So if we are comparing Mongols & Romans then let us bring the Romans to the time of Mongols, or vice-versa, technologically.

kNikS · 06-20-2006, 13:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gilgamesh

...simulation fights involving different species in that Animal Planet progam...

Correction: extremely crappy simulation fights involving different species in that Animal Planet progam. It is for sure one of the most stupidest things that I've ever seen.

shakari · 06-22-2006, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gilgamesh

But the Roman empire continued. Frederick Barbarosa, Holy Roman Emperor.

The Holy Roman Empire
"Neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire" Voltaire

Just couldn't resist

gunnut · 06-22-2006, 16:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kNikS

Correction: extremely crappy simulation fights involving different species in that Animal Planet progam. It is for sure one of the most stupidest things that I've ever seen.

Completely agree. That was one of the worst piece of crap ever came out of the Discovery Channel. Pro wrestling is more realistic.

gunnut · 06-22-2006, 16:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakari

The Holy Roman Empire
"Neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire" Voltaire

Just couldn't resist

That one was used on Jeopardy.

Dogukan · 07-03-2006, 13:59 PM

I would say Mongols could easily beat the Romans. Romans could not beat off the Huns and they would not beat their heirs. Same people same methods of fighting.

Canmoore · 08-10-2006, 12:19 PM

what about the Monguls vs. the Huns?

The Hun defeated the Romans, so who says the Hun couldnt be a sufficient matchup against the Mongols?

**Officer of Engineers** · 08-10-2006, 12:34 PM

The Huns would be chopped meat. The 1st thing old Genghis did was to modernize the Mongol tactics and then he proceeded to kill his Mongol rivals. They were well versed at killing each other as well as those they conquer. The Huns would not have stood a chance.

Canmoore · 08-10-2006, 13:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

The Huns would be chopped meat. The 1st thing old Genghis did was to modernize the Mongol tactics and then he proceeded to kill his Mongol rivals. They were well versed at killing each other as well as those they conquer. The Huns would not have stood a chance.

one could say that they would have been "hun out to dry" haha

**astralis** · 08-10-2006, 13:59 PM

canmoore,

Quote:

The Hun defeated the Romans, so who says the Hun couldnt be a sufficient matchup against the Mongols?

the mongols wiped out a song china that had factories busily mass-producing firearms and grenades by the hundreds of thousands, with a vibrant economy backing it all up.

the huns, on the other hand, were defeated by a conglomeration of visigoths, other assorted "barbarians", and a rump roman army led by aetius, at a time when the roman empire was on the verge of falling apart from massive internal barbarian migrations.

there's no comparison.

View Poll Results: Who would be victorious?
Mongol Empire	62	55.36%
Roman Empire	50	44.64%
Voters: 112. You may not vote on this poll

08-10-2006, 12:34 PM	#88 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers *Military Professional* Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 15,915 Country:	The Huns would be chopped meat. The 1st thing old Genghis did was to modernize the Mongol tactics and then he proceeded to kill his Mongol rivals. They were well versed at killing each other as well as those they conquer. The Huns would not have stood a chance. __________________ Chimo

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Geographic Catalysts for Secularization in Western Europe	Ironduke	The Staff College	36	05-07-2007 03:57 AM
The Greatest Empire	scotsboyuk	General History	188	02-07-2007 16:16 PM
The Fall Of Rome?	Ironside	Ancient & Medieval	61	05-25-2006 21:47 PM
Destroying Baghdad	sparten	Warfare in the Modern Age	9	02-20-2006 16:22 PM
Are our Soldiers incompetent?	giggs88	The Western Alliance	104	12-28-2005 23:31 PM

06-18-2006, 01:35 AM	#77 (permalink)
Blademaster Military Enthusiast *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-15-03 Posts: 3,049	No it did not. It was under a different vanguard, the Germanic Tribes who were nowhere near the Romans. They just wanted the title of the Roman in order to justify their rule over the rest of Europe and hope to use the brand name to cower other enemies but it wasn't even enough. Guys when you compare Romans to Mongols, you are basically comparing apples and oranges. They are in entirely different contexts. Remember the Romans could not survive the times during the 500s and from on. Therefore, we can't say if they are able to adopt the new technologies or methods during the 1000s. Yes the Romans were able to defeat the Parthians on several occasions but on several occasions the Parthians were able to defeat the Romans on several occasions and the Parthians were no way near the level of sophistication and mastery of cavalry warfare exhibited by the Mongol horse archers. Besides The romans never had to face such numerical odds as the Mongols' enemies did.

06-20-2006, 13:32 PM	#81 (permalink)
Maximus OMGWTFPWNED! *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 10-31-04 Location: India Posts: 876 Country:	I understand your point. But any great empire would survive for centuries based on 2 things: good governance & good military. For the western roman empire to survive till the 12th Century, a good military was just absolultely required. Because that would have helped it survive from Moslem Invasions of 9th & 10th Century, & several other viking & other barbarian invasions. It is not hard to notice that Roman empire collapsed when the military was at its weakest. So if we are comparing Mongols & Romans then let us bring the Romans to the time of Mongols, or vice-versa, technologically.

07-03-2006, 13:59 PM	#86 (permalink)
Dogukan Banished Join Date: 07-03-06 Posts: 36	I would say Mongols could easily beat the Romans. Romans could not beat off the Huns and they would not beat their heirs. Same people same methods of fighting.

08-10-2006, 12:19 PM	#87 (permalink)
Canmoore *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 05-18-06 Location: Canada Posts: 1,330 Country:	what about the Monguls vs. the Huns? The Hun defeated the Romans, so who says the Hun couldnt be a sufficient matchup against the Mongols?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)