Mongol Empire vs. Roman Empire - Page 7

Low-tech · 08-10-2006, 18:47 PM

if rome could stay alive enough to assimilate tactics, bribe over mongols with the knowledge of superior technology,tactics and intel

what made rome great was choosing its battles<at times>, dividing the enemies loyalties to thier rulers, deceptive diplomacy, assimilating thier enemies tactics<horse archers in the east,modified triremes against carthage>and using it against them, buying off key figures of thier opposition, thier abilty to accept astonishing defeats and rebuild an army from scratch and draw up new plans to wage war.

letter writting is the left hand of militarism, roman politics were used to the full effect of deception, used to a tactical advantage when there is no military one. rome cant be just simply summed up by numbers and generals alone. they faced superior armys many times thru history and came out to either a stalemate,loss of minimal territory or bribed their way out of defeat,made peace for a time to renew war on thier terms etc.

mongols were more "kill all,burn all,destroy all" to anyone who resisted. they werent good at conquering enemies,conscripting more troops out of those fallen nations populations,assimilating those cultures and expanding on permanently held territories. they didnt adjust well to combat situations on sea or in thick jungles, thier arrogance kept on pushing armies at japan and vietnam to total disaster.

if rome can make it a war of attrition they could succeed in the long run. if they cant adapt to fighting mongols given time then its a turkey shoot for the mongols

even if rome was defeated the mongols would assimilate thier culture like they did the chinese. mongols would liken themselves as romans afterwords much like the german tribes did after rome fell.

Feydakin · 08-23-2006, 08:35 AM

roman verses mongul
whenever the monguls went somewhere they left the place a desert
the romans would build something and claim it as theirs.
For sheer ruthless ability the monguls remember they invented the the scorched earth policy.
the monguls saw the whole earth as one big grazing area for their ponys and that rome itself would be apart of that plan

ColonalStriker · 11-06-2006, 17:19 PM

Romans would totaly kill all of their insignificant souls...

gilgamesh · 11-29-2006, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Low-tech

if rome could stay alive enough to assimilate tactics, bribe over mongols with the knowledge of superior technology,tactics and intel

what made rome great was choosing its battles<at times>, dividing the enemies loyalties to thier rulers, deceptive diplomacy, assimilating thier enemies tactics<horse archers in the east,modified triremes against carthage>and using it against them, buying off key figures of thier opposition, thier abilty to accept astonishing defeats and rebuild an army from scratch and draw up new plans to wage war.

Mongols at their peak were a very cohesive fighting unit. They may have fought amongst themselves, but when faced with an external threat, would huddle together.

letter writting is the left hand of militarism, roman politics were used to the full effect of deception, used to a tactical advantage when there is no military one. rome cant be just simply summed up by numbers and generals alone. they faced superior armys many times thru history and came out to either a stalemate,loss of minimal territory or bribed their way out of defeat,made peace for a time to renew war on thier terms etc.

Yup.

mongols were more "kill all,burn all,destroy all" to anyone who resisted. they werent good at conquering enemies,conscripting more troops out of those fallen nations populations,assimilating those cultures and expanding on permanently held territories. they didnt adjust well to combat situations on sea or in thick jungles, thier arrogance kept on pushing armies at japan and vietnam to total disaster.

Mongols also left a legacy in Central Asia. A system of law and governance that continues to this day in some parts.

if rome can make it a war of attrition they could succeed in the long run. if they cant adapt to fighting mongols given time then its a turkey shoot for the mongols

even if rome was defeated the mongols would assimilate thier culture like they did the chinese. mongols would liken themselves as romans afterwords much like the german tribes did after rome fell.

...

xerxes · 01-31-2007, 00:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sparten

Please, they captured Ctesiphon, 5 times, in 116 AD, 165 AD, 198 AD, 250 AD, 295 AD, as well as in 627 AD, (Herculius)

it should be noted that Ctesiphon was very near the western border of Persia ... it was like having the capital of the Roman Empire under Trajen at Jersulam. BTW how many times did the city of Rome fell to the invading armies. You cannot compare the petty defenses of Ctesiphon to that of Constantipole.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sparten

This is based on another myth; Romans could not fight in the desert. Yeah, right, they conqured such places as Egypt, Libiya, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Jordan and North West Saudia Arabia.

Roman could indeed fight in desert and is at you say a myth. However, the conquests of those lands you mentioned was also greatly influenced by lack of opposition. Aside from Alexander's relics of Ptolmly and Seclucides, what real power did the Roman broke to conquer "Egypt, Libiya, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Jordan and North West Saudia Arabia"??

xerxes · 01-31-2007, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sparten

True. But that had more to do with the fact it was a very de-centralised kingdom. Unlike the Persian Empires before and after it, whom ALexander and the Arabs conquered with reletive ease.

Even after the Sassanid overthrow the Parthian yoke, the Persian monarchy was not as powerfull as Alexander Severus's Rome. They were not two equal powers in terms of military though perhapes in time Justinean and Nushiraven they came to be equal.

BTW I dont think it is somewhat hard to conquer a decaying empire ready to collapse. As far as Alexander and Arabs were concern, 25 years of warfare with Rome broke Persia's back. Didnt the Hercluis lost his richest Asiatic dominions to Saracens as well. His capital survived, therefore his empire survived as Arabs were not master's of the sea yet.

darth_malick · 01-31-2007, 01:07 AM

If we take away the gunpowder and some of the advances in siege equipment, the Mongol army would still hold a great advantage.

Roman Armies historically did poorly against opposition composed of superior cavalry. Regardless of the fact that most of these nations had inferior infantry. The Mongols Cavalry was much better (in coordination/tactics) than what the Romans faced.

Considering the sophistication and the quick, evasive nature of the Mongol War machine, they should be able to crush legions in the open field. Especially by hurting supply lines and doing hit and runs if they faced superior numbers.

When it came to taking cities they would have to sustain heavy casualties, due to the weaker infantry (in terms of discipline and tactics). I think you can still make a decent camparison of the two fighting forces since there was no Radical change in technology other than the cannons and those were not a big factor in the open field at the time.

Plus they tied heads to their horses, that is so crazy they would to win on account of making legionaires quesy and scared. HeHe

xerxes · 01-31-2007, 01:11 AM

^^^

the mongoles had a lot of help from Chinese engineers in siege warfare later on. you dont belive me, ask the last Caliph of the Abbassides who was rolled into a carpet while the entire horde passed over and trumpled it

.... therefore, if we are comparing Imperial rome, then we must compare it with Imperial Mongolia, in a sense that we should consider the entire Mongole host with their vassals and subjects .... including the Chinese seige engineers

sparten · 01-31-2007, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xerxes

it should be noted that Ctesiphon was very near the western border of Persia ... it was like having the capital of the Roman Empire under Trajen at Jersulam. BTW how many times did the city of Rome fell to the invading armies. You cannot compare the petty defenses of Ctesiphon to that of Constantipole.

Roman could indeed fight in desert and is at you say a myth. However, the conquests of those lands you mentioned was also greatly influenced by lack of opposition. Aside from Alexander's relics of Ptolmly and Seclucides, what real power did the Roman broke to conquer "Egypt, Libiya, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Jordan and North West Saudia Arabia"??

While its true that Ctesiphon was located close to the border, you should also remeber that the forces defending it were also formidable. And the Romans also had to be on the guard from incursions from the Parthians and the Sassaniads.

And Trajen went all the way on to Susa. While Severus completely destroyed Parthian forces in Iraq, and with it their power.

xerxes · 01-31-2007, 12:54 PM

Sparten, you cannot compare the power of Parthia to that of the majesty of Rome. Certainly, Rome was greater but yet you should know that the Parthians/Sassanides were the only enemy that the Roman accepted as a civilized enemy and that they had cordinal relation with them. Also, I sincerly doubt that the capital of Persia or Parthia would have been captured five times had it been located in the depth of Persia and not on the frontier line. Parthian Empire itself was a loose federation of powerfull vassal kingdoms. Sassanides persia was also very much preoccupied fighting the White Huns - the Hesphtalite - in their eastern corners of their empire, somewhere near the Oxus river in central Asia ... very much the sameway Rome was fighting Germanic tribes. This fact is obscure to most Wester historians. Frankly, I always questioned the notion that Ctesiphon was the only capital of Parthia and Persia and they must have a large central of operation for their eastern wars and to check the power of Turks beyound Oxus.

BTW ... Have you read Edward Gibbons's history of the decline and fall of the roman empire??

Zeng · 01-31-2007, 21:36 PM

Off the topic

But hope you enjoy reading this archaeology discovery.

As early as 1940's, archaeologists has suspected the connection of a Chinese city with the lost Roman Legion.

A 2,000-Year-Old Puzzle Solved?

Lost Roman Legion in Ancient China? [Archive] - Military Photos

xerxes · 01-31-2007, 22:39 PM

^^

very good read ... it was common practice not only by Parthians/Persian but as well with the Romans who would send their new conquered people to other side of their realm. For example, Belisarus brought many Gauls and other Germanic tribes to fight under his banner against Persia, while Shapur II had in his army Vertae, Albanians, Chionites, Indians and Segestans

(ref. Edward Gibbons)

Zeng · 01-31-2007, 23:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xerxes

^^

very good read ... it was common practice not only by Parthians/Persian but as well with the Romans who would send their new conquered people to other side of their realm. For example, Belisarus brought many Gauls and other Germanic tribes to fight under his banner against Persia, while Shapur II had in his army Vertae, Albanians, Chionites, Indians and Segestans

(ref. Edward Gibbons)

I am glad that you enjoy reading it.

sparten · 02-01-2007, 00:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xerxes

Sparten, you cannot compare the power of Parthia to that of the majesty of Rome. Certainly, Rome was greater but yet you should know that the Parthians/Sassanides were the only enemy that the Roman accepted as a civilized enemy and that they had cordinal relation with them. Also, I sincerly doubt that the capital of Persia or Parthia would have been captured five times had it been located in the depth of Persia and not on the frontier line. Parthian Empire itself was a loose federation of powerfull vassal kingdoms. Sassanides persia was also very much preoccupied fighting the White Huns - the Hesphtalite - in their eastern corners of their empire, somewhere near the Oxus river in central Asia ... very much the sameway Rome was fighting Germanic tribes. This fact is obscure to most Wester historians. Frankly, I always questioned the notion that Ctesiphon was the only capital of Parthia and Persia and they must have a large central of operation for their eastern wars and to check the power of Turks beyound Oxus.

BTW ... Have you read Edward Gibbons's history of the decline and fall of the roman empire??

Yes ages ago. Excellent if biased book. Gr8 resources.

The Persians undert Shapur were certainly not weak. The Parthian's power was destroyed by Serverus and then they were overthrown. As for Easetrn Ops by the Persians, yes they did have bases as far away as the Indus, but lets not forget for both empires at any given time most of their forces were deployed along the Euphrates.

Inst · 02-02-2007, 06:13 AM

As far as we care about China, the Mongols left a great and lasting legacy. They trashed the Song dynasty, which, while corrupt and weak was on the verge of a commerical revolution. If you left the Chinese alone, they would be around the same level as 1700s Europeans in the 1500s. The Ming dynasty's steel production never reached the same per capita levels as the Song, and Chinese civilization was ecologically destructive, it was a race against time to get to modern science before the Chinese environment blew up the Chinese civilization.

01-31-2007, 01:07 AM	#97 (permalink)
darth_malick New Member Join Date: 01-23-07 Location: Canada, Montreal Posts: 16 Country:	Mongol Fighting and Troop Movement was Superior If we take away the gunpowder and some of the advances in siege equipment, the Mongol army would still hold a great advantage. Roman Armies historically did poorly against opposition composed of superior cavalry. Regardless of the fact that most of these nations had inferior infantry. The Mongols Cavalry was much better (in coordination/tactics) than what the Romans faced. Considering the sophistication and the quick, evasive nature of the Mongol War machine, they should be able to crush legions in the open field. Especially by hurting supply lines and doing hit and runs if they faced superior numbers. When it came to taking cities they would have to sustain heavy casualties, due to the weaker infantry (in terms of discipline and tactics). I think you can still make a decent camparison of the two fighting forces since there was no Radical change in technology other than the cannons and those were not a big factor in the open field at the time. Plus they tied heads to their horses, that is so crazy they would to win on account of making legionaires quesy and scared. HeHe __________________ If we let people see that kind of thing, there would never again be any war.

01-31-2007, 21:36 PM	#101 (permalink)
Zeng Contributor Join Date: 01-16-07 Posts: 549 Country:	Off the topic But hope you enjoy reading this archaeology discovery. As early as 1940's, archaeologists has suspected the connection of a Chinese city with the lost Roman Legion. A 2,000-Year-Old Puzzle Solved? Lost Roman Legion in Ancient China? [Archive] - Military Photos __________________ I am here for exchanging opinions.

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

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, 18:47 PM	#91 (permalink)
Low-tech Patron Join Date: 08-04-06 Location: providence, RI Posts: 259	if rome could stay alive enough to assimilate tactics, bribe over mongols with the knowledge of superior technology,tactics and intel what made rome great was choosing its battles<at times>, dividing the enemies loyalties to thier rulers, deceptive diplomacy, assimilating thier enemies tactics<horse archers in the east,modified triremes against carthage>and using it against them, buying off key figures of thier opposition, thier abilty to accept astonishing defeats and rebuild an army from scratch and draw up new plans to wage war. letter writting is the left hand of militarism, roman politics were used to the full effect of deception, used to a tactical advantage when there is no military one. rome cant be just simply summed up by numbers and generals alone. they faced superior armys many times thru history and came out to either a stalemate,loss of minimal territory or bribed their way out of defeat,made peace for a time to renew war on thier terms etc. mongols were more "kill all,burn all,destroy all" to anyone who resisted. they werent good at conquering enemies,conscripting more troops out of those fallen nations populations,assimilating those cultures and expanding on permanently held territories. they didnt adjust well to combat situations on sea or in thick jungles, thier arrogance kept on pushing armies at japan and vietnam to total disaster. if rome can make it a war of attrition they could succeed in the long run. if they cant adapt to fighting mongols given time then its a turkey shoot for the mongols even if rome was defeated the mongols would assimilate thier culture like they did the chinese. mongols would liken themselves as romans afterwords much like the german tribes did after rome fell.

08-23-2006, 08:35 AM	#92 (permalink)
Feydakin New Member Join Date: 08-19-06 Location: Australia Posts: 20	roman verses mongul whenever the monguls went somewhere they left the place a desert the romans would build something and claim it as theirs. For sheer ruthless ability the monguls remember they invented the the scorched earth policy. the monguls saw the whole earth as one big grazing area for their ponys and that rome itself would be apart of that plan

11-06-2006, 17:19 PM	#93 (permalink)
ColonalStriker New Member Join Date: 10-25-06 Location: Colorado Posts: 10	Romans would totaly kill all of their insignificant souls...

01-31-2007, 01:11 AM	#98 (permalink)
xerxes Padishah Shahanshah *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-23-07 Location: Canada Posts: 949 Country:	^^^ the mongoles had a lot of help from Chinese engineers in siege warfare later on. you dont belive me, ask the last Caliph of the Abbassides who was rolled into a carpet while the entire horde passed over and trumpled it .... therefore, if we are comparing Imperial rome, then we must compare it with Imperial Mongolia, in a sense that we should consider the entire Mongole host with their vassals and subjects .... including the Chinese seige engineers

01-31-2007, 12:54 PM	#100 (permalink)
xerxes Padishah Shahanshah *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-23-07 Location: Canada Posts: 949 Country:	Sparten, you cannot compare the power of Parthia to that of the majesty of Rome. Certainly, Rome was greater but yet you should know that the Parthians/Sassanides were the only enemy that the Roman accepted as a civilized enemy and that they had cordinal relation with them. Also, I sincerly doubt that the capital of Persia or Parthia would have been captured five times had it been located in the depth of Persia and not on the frontier line. Parthian Empire itself was a loose federation of powerfull vassal kingdoms. Sassanides persia was also very much preoccupied fighting the White Huns - the Hesphtalite - in their eastern corners of their empire, somewhere near the Oxus river in central Asia ... very much the sameway Rome was fighting Germanic tribes. This fact is obscure to most Wester historians. Frankly, I always questioned the notion that Ctesiphon was the only capital of Parthia and Persia and they must have a large central of operation for their eastern wars and to check the power of Turks beyound Oxus. BTW ... Have you read Edward Gibbons's history of the decline and fall of the roman empire??

01-31-2007, 22:39 PM	#102 (permalink)
xerxes Padishah Shahanshah *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-23-07 Location: Canada Posts: 949 Country:	^^ very good read ... it was common practice not only by Parthians/Persian but as well with the Romans who would send their new conquered people to other side of their realm. For example, Belisarus brought many Gauls and other Germanic tribes to fight under his banner against Persia, while Shapur II had in his army Vertae, Albanians, Chionites, Indians and Segestans (ref. Edward Gibbons)

02-02-2007, 06:13 AM	#105 (permalink)
Inst Patron Join Date: 12-17-06 Posts: 167	As far as we care about China, the Mongols left a great and lasting legacy. They trashed the Song dynasty, which, while corrupt and weak was on the verge of a commerical revolution. If you left the Chinese alone, they would be around the same level as 1700s Europeans in the 1500s. The Ming dynasty's steel production never reached the same per capita levels as the Song, and Chinese civilization was ecologically destructive, it was a race against time to get to modern science before the Chinese environment blew up the Chinese civilization.

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