PDA

View Full Version : Mongol Empire vs. Roman Empire



Pages : [1] 2 3

akash
07 Jun 06,, 23:57
Who would win?

I say the Mongols would win easily because Romans are no match for the quick cavalry of the mongols. The slow-moving and heavily armored Roman soldiers would be destroyed by the Mongols.

The Mongols were known to use gunpowder, and grenades and their methods of seige warfare would equal if not surpass the Romans.

The Romans would be clearly overwhelmed.

leib10
08 Jun 06,, 00:48
Yes, such as happened when the Mongols engaged the heavily armored soldiers of Eastern Europe.

PubFather
10 Jun 06,, 00:02
If you equalize the technologies - which you would need to do for a meaningful comparison - then ultimately, the Romans at their height would have won.

Why? The Romans were principally noted for their heavy infantry - but also for their ability to adapt tactics. They fought other horse cultures - sometime losing, sometimes winning. Disciplined, heavy infantry is capable of defeating cavalry and has done so on many occaisions.

More than that, they used lots of auxilla to supplement their forces - including lots of cav.

Last, but not least, the Romans at their height, would have been fighting from much reduced lines of communication, with far greater population densities. They may have lost lots of battles, but they would have won the war.

leib10
10 Jun 06,, 00:32
The heavily armored infantry could not compete with the cavalry archers that the Mongols employed. Using hit and run tactics, the Mongols could decimate Roman infantry before they got into range. It happened to the Eastern Europeans that the Mongols fought. Only the use of counter-archers could help keep the cavalry archers at bay.

The Romans used cavalry, but usually depended almost solely on the infantry to win battles. Up against heavier Parthian cavalry, Roman horsemen usually couldn't compete.

gunnut
10 Jun 06,, 03:24
The Mongols were known to use gunpowder, and grenades and their methods of seige warfare would equal if not surpass the Romans.

And of course they were seperated by nearly 1000 years. What do you think would happen if the Romans had access to gunpowder at 200 AD?

ArmchairGeneral
10 Jun 06,, 03:50
And of course they were seperated by nearly 1000 years. What do you think would happen if the Romans had access to gunpowder at 200 AD?
Good gosh, let's not speculate. That's just too scary. Romans with gunpowder? We'd probably still be speaking Latin.

Asim Aquil
10 Jun 06,, 05:54
Romans definitely if you don't compare 15th century weapons with the 10th century weapons.

The real match for the Roman and Byzantium Empire was the Ottoman Empire. Mongols did attack them, but kept failing till the Ottomans reaped victory one after another.

But if you compare governance then the Mughals were far ahead especially under Muslim rule, under the Babur dynasty.

Officer of Engineers
10 Jun 06,, 06:14
The real match for the Roman and Byzantium Empire was the Ottoman Empire. Mongols did attack them, but kept failing till the Ottomans reaped victory one after another.

What? Tammerlane mean anything to you?

kNikS
10 Jun 06,, 14:42
Yes, such as happened when the Mongols engaged the heavily armored soldiers of Eastern Europe.

First, If we re talking about same “heavily armored soldiers of Eastern Europe” they were actually West European-style heavy cavalry/knights.

Second, that West European-style heavy cavalier/knight I am talking about is Serbian Despot Stefan Lazarevic, the first knight of The Order of the Dragon, same order whose member earlier killed sultan Murad I.

Third, he fought in Battle of Angora (as well as in several other battles) on the right wing of sultan Beyazid I, where he

1) Routed Tamerlan’s light cavalry on the left wing
2) Pushed back Tamerlan’s heavy cavalry on left wing
3) Finally stopped by Tamerlan’s reserve consisted of heavy cavalry
4) Assaulted thrice the ring of the Tamerlan’s most experienced heavy cavalry at the center that encircled Beyazid and Janissaries
5) Left battlefield with remaining troops

sparten
10 Jun 06,, 15:48
What? Tammerlane mean anything to you?
Was not really Mongol. And the Turks did shake that defeat off.


Good gosh, let's not speculate. That's just too scary. Romans with gunpowder? We'd probably still be speaking Latin
Not really. When gunpowder came along, people did not get the idea that "we should take a hollow metal tube which is open at one end, put a bag of black powder and a metal ball in it, and then set it off with a match", immdietly after gunpowder was invented. And in battles they were used either as granades (as a Ayn Jalut in 1260) or to launch arrows. It was many centuries before the Chinese and the Arabs came up with a workable cannon.


The Romans used cavalry, but usually depended almost solely on the infantry to win battles. Up against heavier Parthian cavalry, Roman horsemen usually couldn't compete.
Please, they captured Ctesiphon, 5 times, in 116 AD, 165 AD, 198 AD, 250 AD, 295 AD, as well as in 627 AD, (Herculius)
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.

Officer of Engineers
10 Jun 06,, 19:21
Was not really Mongol.

Who was going to argue?

PubFather
10 Jun 06,, 21:13
Its too easy to argue that horse mounted archers would be decisive.

If you recall the long shields of the Romans - they were actually designed to minimise the casuality count of any missile barrage. Lets not forget that in early AD times the Romans had already mastered artillery, with Onangers and Ballistae.

Any Roman/Mongol war depends on the ability of the commanders - Romans with Varus would die, with Julies Caesar would find a way. same with the mongols.

Seige warfare - where it would have come down to- would have been much more equal. The Romans were masters at seiges - and imho would have bled the Mongols dry

Blademaster
10 Jun 06,, 22:27
.

Any Roman/Mongol war depends on the ability of the commanders - Romans with Varus would die, with Julies Caesar would find a way. same with the mongols.

Seige warfare - where it would have come down to- would have been much more equal. The Romans were masters at seiges - and imho would have bled the Mongols dry

Ha! Have you ever study the wars of China during the Roman times? The level of sophistication of the artillery were way ahead what the Romans had. And there were long sieges and short sieges waged in China.

If you study Caesar's invasion of Gaul and the Battle against Vertingrotix(sp?) He made a fatal mistake and that is letting an enemy force sandwich his forces between an anvil (the fortress) and the hammer (the outside enemy force). It was only through sheer stupidity of the commanders of the enemy forces that allowed Caesar to win. Against the Mongols, his mistake would have led Caesar and his forces to horse fodder.

By the way, the Mongols were masters of siege warfare. Ever study the siege of Baghdad and the siege of some European city in Eastern Europe. One of their favorite tactics was to cut off the heads of horses, enemy soldiers, and throw them back inside in the fortress. That way, they would spread disease among the defenders of the fortress. The Mongols were one of the early pioneers of bio warfare.

Besides, siege forces is no match for manuever forces because you need a steady stream of supply to keep your army fed, clothed, free from disease, sanitised, etc. Manuever forces would cut off the LOCs of the sieging force.

SRB
10 Jun 06,, 23:25
Huns kick Romans bad and Mongols were far more deadly than Huns.
Mongols were masters of siege which Huns never learn.
Also Mongol crossbow was very good and cheap bow.
Nothing could compare with mobility of mongol horse rider each had 5 horses, they were faster than modern armies.
In the end they control largest land emipe in human history.

gunnut
11 Jun 06,, 02:32
Huns kick Romans bad and Mongols were far more deadly than Huns.
Mongols were masters of siege which Huns never learn.
Also Mongol crossbow was very good and cheap bow.
Nothing could compare with mobility of mongol horse rider each had 5 horses, they were faster than modern armies.
In the end they control largest land emipe in human history.

Yeah, but the cultural aspect is important also. Mongols had no culture. They have not made lasting impressions on this earth, other than body counts. Their rule in China was one of the shortest dynasties. The Hans kicked them out.

They might be able to defeat the Romans in the short, military term, but they will lose the long term cultural battle. We are still talking about the Roman Empire today. We still marvel at Roman technologies. Our government is modeled after the Romans, who were not too good to borrow a good thing from the Greeks when they saw one.

How long did the Roman Empire last? Some say the American Empire today is the distant relative of Roman Empire. Where are the Mongols?

Don't get me wrong, the Mongols were fierce warriors who rarely met their match on the battlefield. But being nomadic, they didn't have the staying power for a settled people.

Blademaster
11 Jun 06,, 02:49
Yeah, but the cultural aspect is important also. Mongols had no culture. They have not made lasting impressions on this earth, other than body counts.

Wrong. The Golden Khanate. The Ottoman Turks. The Mughals.

gunnut
11 Jun 06,, 03:24
Wrong. The Golden Khanate. The Ottoman Turks. The Mughals.

Are these the same nomadic people from Mongolia and Siberia? Or are they more like distant cousins who have settled centuries removed from their nomadic roots?

Blademaster
11 Jun 06,, 05:43
Are these the same nomadic people from Mongolia and Siberia? Or are they more like distant cousins who have settled centuries removed from their nomadic roots?

They are the direct descendants of the invading Mongol hordes. They converted from nomadic tribes into settled people with traces of nomadic life.

sparten
11 Jun 06,, 08:04
Wrong. The Golden Khanate. The Ottoman Turks. The Mughals.
The Golden Khanate, possibly. Not the other two. The Ottomons could be traced back to the Turks under Alp Arsalan, who crushed the Romans at Mazikert in 1074. And modern day Turks (or Ottomons for that matter) are merely the Turkified residents of Anatolia (and muslim Greeks).

The Mughals are a different matter altogerther, they claimed decent from Taimur trues, who himself claimed decent from Genghis Khan, which was a pretty dubious proposition. And people like Shah jahen and the Aurengzeb were more Indian (or possibly Afghan) both culturally, ethinically and biologically than they ever were Central Asian.


How long did the Roman Empire last? Some say the American Empire today is the distant relative of Roman Empire. Where are the Mongols?
Depends on what you define by "Roman" and "Empire" and "last".
Looking at it calmly, I would say that the Roman Empire lasted until 698 AD, the all of Carthage to the Arabs, that was the last vestige of the old Latin Empire that Constantinople had.
Of Course the fall of Constantinople in 1453 can also be said to have the end of the Empire.

ASG
11 Jun 06,, 10:10
The Roman Empire spanned two millenia(incl. the Eastern Roman Empire).

The Mongols reigned from 1206 AD to the 1350s. But it is also a fact that in that time they created the largest empire.

Romans usually had to fight wars against the invading armies of the various Barbarians, but in the case of Mongols, there was no empire or barbarians their to attack them.

The Cavalry Archers Mongols used were successful because the heavily armoured cavalry & infantry of Europe broke ranks to pursue the Archers.

Lightly armoured Mongol archers would be crushed against discplined Roman Infantry. Not to forget that Roman Infantry would be supported by seige, archers of their own and heavy cavalry, which would make it very difficult for the Mongols.

sparten
11 Jun 06,, 14:12
Lightly armoured Mongol archers would be crushed against discplined Roman Infantry. Not to forget that Roman Infantry would be supported by seige, archers of their own and heavy cavalry, which would make it very difficult for the Mongols.

Depends on the era. If its was circa 100~395 AD, then yeah sure. But after that, the Romans were pretty deficient in cavalry.

SRB
11 Jun 06,, 23:10
FACTS:
Monogol empire was largest empire in world.
It last short.
Mongols havent problem with climate, Romans had, this why they never go deep in East Europe.
Monogols get to Egypt.
Only in warfare Mongols were in front of Romans and in front of rest of world until mechanize armies, dont forget they were horseman army, faster than modern armies.

SRB
11 Jun 06,, 23:13
Monogols capture India, Alexandar didnt and Macedonian warfare is similar to Roman warfare, Romans copy them, because Romans copy all good things.

kNikS
11 Jun 06,, 23:22
Brate - Mongoli i mehanizovane armije!?

SRB
11 Jun 06,, 23:46
Speed of move.
If you read more about monogolian horse rider, each had 5+1 horses(one carring food and water) they can pass huge distances in short time and no need for fuel, repairs etc..
In many historian studies Monogolian horse army was fastest land army in history.
Panzers stop after 400 km in France. Also US tank core stop 400 km in Iraq waiting fuel.

sparten
12 Jun 06,, 06:59
FACTS:
Monogols get to Egypt.
They never got to Egypt. They were defeated at Ayn jalut (in palestine) in 1260, and then at Homs a few years later. They would be eventually pushed out of Mesopotamia.

And plese don't compare the Mongols with the Romans. Just look at how people remember the two. Romes Empire streched from (in their own words) "Britannia to Arabia". Even today, in all their former territories they are remembered with fondness. What do people remember about the Mongols. Lots of severed heads and raped women.

Parihaka
12 Jun 06,, 08:48
The Romans were professional soldiers, the Europeans at least during the time of the Mongol invasions were in the main peasants drafted for specific wars. The mere fact that they broke ranks to pursue the Mongols speaks volumes about their discipline. The Romans were organised on every level and co-ordinated within a single empire. The Mongols would've been toast.

sparten
12 Jun 06,, 10:26
The Romans were professional soldiers, the Europeans at least during the time of the Mongol invasions were in the main peasants drafted for specific wars. The mere fact that they broke ranks to pursue the Mongols speaks volumes about their discipline. The Romans were organised on every level and co-ordinated within a single empire. The Mongols would've been toast.
In Trajens time and for 3 centuries after, yeah sure.

gunnut
12 Jun 06,, 18:28
I think this is a bad question to ask who would win between the Mongols and the Romans. They were from 2 completely different eras. It's like asking who would win between Nazi's Wehrmacht and Napolean's army.

Better question is who had more influence on modern history. Roman Empire hands down, followed closely by the British Empire.

druik
12 Jun 06,, 20:44
The Romans DID manage to beat the Huns under their greatest leader during the waning years of the Western Empire. The Huns surely had similar tactics to the Mongols since they are both steppe peoples.

The Roman's greatest asset were that they were pretty flexible about changing their arms and armor depending on who they were fighting.

I'm confident they would've found a way to counter a mobile enemy like the Mongols.

SRB
12 Jun 06,, 23:46
Hm history doesnt said that what you said druik?

Romans win battle in war with Attila(at Campus Mauriciacus on 20 June 451AD), but de facto Romans lost war.
One more thing it wasnt Roman army break flank of Hun army it was Roman allies German barbarian tribes.
After humilation defeat Atila was more resolute to crush Romans.
Next year he gather bigger army bypass Germans,get in Italy and became unbeatable, it was than he get nickname
"God's whip".

His conquest stop winter, but before that he sign peace with Pope and took good amouth of Roman gold for peace.
His plans were to attack next year and total destroy Roman empire.But he dead for fast and misterian illness.

On other hand you will have monogols who know to survive winter and they had much better tactics than Huns.On net you can find everything about Huns and Monogols.

Mogonol army organisation was on same level as Romans.
Monogol army was full horseman bow army plus engineer and Huns had large share of infntary and archers.

I will be glad to see roman heavy cavalry against Monogol light bow cavalry,it will be massacre of slow Roman cavalry, which primer mission was to defeat archers.
It will be hit and run Romans will be very confuse.
Monogol bow had great penetration ability it go through armor of heavy knight on distance were monogol horse archers were safe for enemy archers, it was nice peice of wood but much important speed of horse gives it more kinetic energy.
Romans had horse scout and heavy cavalry, nothing more on horses.They never meet until Huns with large number of fast mobile archers.

Hm Monogols did get to Egypt because in that time Palestina was part of Egypt (maybe I am wrong) but if they get to Palestina they were capable to fight in diferent climates, which Romans didnt(if you look they stop because of climate in their conquest on East and North )

On cultural and tehnological impact Roman empire is on first place, ten place are blank and than we can discussion.

Well there is something that Monogols are left behind each tenth citiezen of Europe have Monogol blood.

druik
13 Jun 06,, 00:02
Uh, as I've read it...the Roman regulars in the center of the line were the only ones that held, it was the German allies that gave way.

sparten
13 Jun 06,, 12:08
Hm history doesnt said that what you said druik?

Hm Monogols did get to Egypt because in that time Palestina was part of Egypt (maybe I am wrong)

They never got to Egypt, its true that the Mamluke empire was pretty large (the largest Egyptian Empire since Ramases II 2500 year earlier), but the fact is that they never got to Egypt proper.


if they get to Palestina they were capable to fight in diferent climates, which Romans didnt(if you look they stop because of climate in their conquest on East and North )

Romans ruled Egypt and Palestine for centuriers. They ruled the North West of Saudia Arabia, (the Hejaz), and most of Iraq, campaigning in the same area the USA is today.
They also ruled in Britannia, North Europe, all very cold places.

there is something that Monogols are left behind each tenth citiezen of Europe have Monogol blood
And we all know why that happened.

SRB
13 Jun 06,, 16:14
Sparten what is your point?
Roman empire wasnt big as Monogol empire.
First England isnt cold as Ukraina or Russia that is fact.
Romans favor central europian climate and mediteran climate.
Monogol army in Palestina was very small that is major reason for defeat, number is important.Also they never get reinforcement because of death of Kan.

On cultural and historical level Romans are far in front of any other civilization for Europians and Americans.
If you ask Chinese, Indians and people of Middlle East they will tell you than Monogols affect them more than Romans. For Muslimans Monogols did great job they spread Islam (India especially).

I am Europian so Romans are major civilization for me.

But we are talking about millitary ability of both empires. Just look East Roman empire it never change tactics.

All mighty Europian empires of Dark Age use Heavy cavalry,archers and infantry as backbone of army, no one use light horse archers.So empires which are successors of Romans use slow moving army for concept of close combat warefare.

After Huns no one didnt introduce fast horse army, on the contrary
they slow more army with heavier armor and heavier weapons.
There is big reason for that, if you want full horse army you need large number of horses which no nomadic civilizations didnt had, also you need exelent horse riders which Europians arent.

About battle between Romans and Germans versus Huns we have only Roman report, so it is natural to show your army as brave and German barbarians as cowards(remeber Eglish report of turkish army in Crimean war), but it was plan tactic to cut of one flank of Hun army by loosen German flank, so Hun flank push them and then part of Roman central line cut them, it was Hannibal tactic which all later Roman generals favor.
Fact is that if Romans didnt have help of Germans they would lost battle.

Conclusion to fight Monogols you need same army as monogols had.

IDonT
13 Jun 06,, 17:07
You guys are forgetting that Rome did fight a cavalry based empire, Parthia.

Look at the battle of Carrhae 55BC. 40,000 Roman Legions vs 9,000 horse archers + 1,000 cataphracts (heavy cavalry). The Romans got butchered 1/3 died, 1/3 prisoners, 1/3 survived.

Roman accounts states that:
"When Publius urged them to charge the enemy's mail-clad horsemen, they showed him that their hands were riveted to their shields and their feet nailed through and through to the ground, so that they were helpless either for flight or for self-defence." (Plutarch, Life of Crassus, XXV)

The Parthians were using a recurved bow, an earlier version of the Composite Recurved bow that the Mongols would use in their conquest. The Parthian bow, according to Plutarch, pierce through their tower sheild and nailed it to their hands. The Roman world, western world, never had anything as powerful as a recurved bow for their archers. Mongol bows were more powerful and they have the superior technology of stirrups (a more stable firing platform).

Secondly, a cavalry army is always faster than an infantry based one. The mongols can always dictate when and where the battle will be. The slower Romans will always be reacting.

kNikS
13 Jun 06,, 19:38
SRB, bro, I hate to dismiss big part of what you have said, but I have to.

It is true that general point of view here, as well as in history as I learn it, is euro-centric, but that doesn’t negate the fact that Roman and Graeco-roman civilization was FAR more influential than any other, and Mongols are not an exception. Remember, Roman Empire, with all its turbulences, maintained stability and superiority for centuries. In any aspect, including military.

You overlooked the fact that Roman Empire was in its downfall while on the other hand Attila was on top of his power. So, he isn’t an exception either, especially considering that his state collapsed with his death and that Roman Empire outlived it.

Also, you don’t seem to understand the meaning of the phrase “big empire”. Especially if you are revaluating a size of state of a nomadic army. And I’m not talking about cultural aspect.

Where did you get the assumption that Romans were dependant on climate (or even worse mild climate)? Mere fact that they controlled territory that included such various climates for so long is more than sufficient rebuttal for this. Fact that “Britain isn’t cold as Ukraine or Russia” is irrelevant. You do know that Balkans is not cold as Russia and Ukraine either but that doesn’t negate the fact that it could be -20 or less. “Stop” in their conquests is more matter of logistics.

How is “Mongol army organization on the same level as Roman”!? Starting from cohesion?

And finally, on the top of this is your theory of light cavalry/mounted archers vs. heavy west European style cavalry. You have forgotten that our knights fought against both mounted archers and heavy cavalry in the Battle of Angora?

IDonT
13 Jun 06,, 19:48
How is “Mongol army organization on the same level as Roman”!? Starting from cohesion?


In my opinion, Mongol military organization was superior to the Romans.

Organization and tactics of the Mongols:

Numerous accounts of the Mongols typically call them a "horde" as if they were merely a mob of savage, milling horsemen. Nothing could be further from the truth: the term "horde", in fact, derives from the Mongol "ordu", simply meaning camp.

The tumen (meaning 10,000) decimal system and leadership The armies of Genghis Khan were organized by tens, hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands, and each segment had commanders, who were chosen by proven ability, not because of their relations to the Khan.

In reality they were tightly organized troops, parceled into units of ten, and from that basic building block, grouped into larger formations roughly corresponding to regiments and other units, finally culminating in the distinct field force of 10,000 horsemen, the famous Mongol tumen (similar to a modern day Division or a Roman Legion). Several of these divisional equivalents were grouped or subdivided as the situation demanded. Coordination was provided by designated unit leaders, with signalling done via horns, smokes, flags etc. Whatever the exact mix or sub-division deployed, it usually spelled bad news for their opponents.

Swarm/encirclement tactics and massed firepower in the field - Mongol tactics were marked by speed, surprise and massive mobility. They approached in widely separated columns, both to ease logistics as well as to gain maneuvering room. Once they had isolated their target, the tumans deployed in wide sweeps, converging on the enemy from several directions. Upon contact the Mongols played cat and mouse, standing-off while devastating opponents with massed arrow fire, or charging in close only to veer off while discharging yet another vicious rain of shafts. Opponents who took the bait and gave pursuit were quickly cut off and liquidated. The constant rain of arrows, the converging swarms of charges and probes, all carried out by the encircling Mongols, were usually enough to "soften up" an enemy. Typically the opposing force broke and then the deadliest butchery began. As is well known, a force is most vulnerable in retreat, and the Mongols were ruthless.

Flexible tactics -- ruses and ambushes- The Mongols were not rigid in their thinking, nor did they adhere to European notions of "chivalry". They deployed a wide variety of large or small tactical subdivisions as the action demanded, and feigned retreat to set traps for pursuers, conducted ambushes, and constantly probed and raided their enemies. Unsentimental in their approach to warfare, they did whatever it took to win.

Mongol siege warfare and Logistics - The Mongol logistical system was distinguished by its mobility and practicality. Most columns or tumen were self-suficient in the short run. The Mongol armies lived off the land extensively -- bad news indeed for hapless civilians in their path. Heavier equipment was brought up by well-organized supply trains. Local lumber, labor, and other resources were pressed into service to feed the needs of the advancing tumen.

Primarily a cavalry force, the Mongols made wide use of captured or hired siege engineers to overcome fortifications. A supply train hauled a variety of siege engines in the wake of the touman sweep, and these were deployed against cities. The Mongols were unsentimental and used every trick in the book, from sapper tunnels to treachery. Once a city had fallen it was subjected to wholesale massacre and pillaging. Cities that surrendered had an easier time, but regardless of how the city or area submitted, certain outcomes were still the same. The Mongol era was characterized by supply trains hauling booty to their core homeland in the steppes.

Mongol terror - Mongol terror and atrocity was notable even for the 13th century. They employed a deliberate policy of terror. It was not unusual for them to round up the civilian population of a city or area and drive the hapless victims forward against an opponent as a human herd, forcing the opponent to make the anguished choice of firing upon or killing its own people, Contemporary accounts speak of mass mountains of human bones, or of vast areas burned to rubble, devoid of all life. Long before Imperial Japan used the phrase, Mongol operations in many areas could indeed be classified as a "Three All" policy- "burn all, kill all, destroy all." And yet such terror at times also had a rational end in sight -- to intimidate opponents further down the line into surrendering or making concessions. In a cruel age, where few nations or tribes won prizes for humane behavior, the Mongols added their own distinct stamp.

Weapons and equipment of the Mongols: the Mongols deployed three general weapons, bows, scimitars and lances. Of these the most important was the dreaded Mongol Bow. Some scholars show two types of bows, one for long range markmanship and the other for shorter range work. Arrows were of different "calibers" for tactical purposes, ranging from warheads capable of penetrating heavy armor, to an assortment of longer range, more specialized heads like "fire" arrows. Like many Asiatic bows, the Mongol bow was composite, made from glue, horn, sinew, wood and bamboo. Lances and scimitars were used for close range encounters within cities or against dispersed enemies in the field. The central weapon however was the bow, with a range of over 200 yards.

Morale and makeup of the Mongol warrior and their mounts: The Mongol was an exceedingly tough warrior. Reared on the harsh steppes of their native land, they were generally a short people, spending hours on horseback from childhood. They were used to privation and hardship, and were extremely dedicated. The Mongol was always seemed to identify with his horse -- the equally tough, hardy steppe pony. They were inseparable, the horse not only providing the means of transport into battle, but being very important to the Mongol steppe economy, providing milk, blood, and meat for food, hair and skin for clothing and tents, and glue and sinews for bow and arrow making. On the march, the Mongol warrior carried a string of ponies, rotating them as remounts to keep up the momentum of the advance. In a tight spot the Mongol would bleed selected ponies, using their blood to assuage his hunger. This extremely lean style of operation contributed to the rapidity of Mongol maneuvers. Typically, the Mongol was practical about his mounts and would discard or slaughter them as demanded by the situation without sentiment.

gunnut
13 Jun 06,, 20:08
Agreed. Mongols had a highly developed militaristic society with superior organization. However, I still doubt their cultural impact upon this world.

The west is shaped and molded by the Roman Empire to this day. The west's influence upon this world can thusly be argued as Roman's influence upon this world, including Asia.

Mongols have largely failed to impact the cultures of the Far East. Japan was nearly wiped out by the Mongols in the 14th century, but in the end, it was not to be. China was conquered by the Mongols, but their reign was short and contributed nothing to the Chinese culture. I don't know about the Mughals, but someone said their claim to the relationship with Ghengis Khan was dubious at best.

Mongols have invaded Europe many times in history, but little cultural impact was felt by the Europeans.

Each of these episodes of Mongol dominance was short compared to the time span of the Roman Empire, which lasted some 800 years for the Roman Empire proper (west) and continued on for centuries as the East Roman Empire and as the Byzentines.

The amazing thing is we can trace the root of the Roman culture back to the Greeks. Their impact on this world is incredible given how small the population was and what little geographical area they actually controled.

leib10
13 Jun 06,, 20:33
That's very true. Mongol influences are few and far between, if there are any at all that can be felt to this day. On the other hand, Greek/Roman culture, language, and technology is part of our everyday life.

IDonT
13 Jun 06,, 20:41
It is true that general point of view here, as well as in history as I learn it, is euro-centric, but that doesn’t negate the fact that Roman and Graeco-roman civilization was FAR more influential than any other, and Mongols are not an exception. Remember, Roman Empire, with all its turbulences, maintained stability and superiority for centuries. In any aspect, including military.


This is sort of the chicken or the egg problem. The Roman and Greek classical civilization have far more influencial than any other civilization in the world was due to their successor 's success (ie. Britain, France, and USA) and not because of anything intrinsic to those civilization. The concept of democracy and equal rights were certainly among them. However, if you bring a Roman Republic citizen to the modern day, they would only recognize a few remnants of their own civilazation.

Now if we are talking about civilizational impact (off topic), China has got Rome beat (in terms of longevity). During the same time period, China also developed "civilizational" traits that are still used today. One of them is the mantra of the U.S. Govt. -- "Civilian Control of the Military". Other's are standardized exam for government position, legalism, and confusianism. In fact, the current Chinese written and spoken language has change little since the days of the Qin dynasty, where it was first codified and established around 330 BCE. Confusianism is still the main traits amongst several Asian nations.

Now it can be argued that Classical Western Civilization had a much greater impact than the Chinese civilization of the same time period. And based on world wide evidence today you have a valid point. However, it was the success of Rome's western successor(France, Britain, Germany, and the US), and in some regards, the failure of Qing China to assert itself in the world stage during the age of imperialism that the bulk of the evidence is based on. The success of Rome's successor, not the success of the Roman civilization itself.

Now comparing Roman impact with the mongols is like comparing apples to oranges. The Mongols were a nomadic people who lived on tents. Han Dynasty China is a better eastern equivalent of the Roman empire.

gunnut
14 Jun 06,, 01:50
I completely agree.

troung
14 Jun 06,, 02:51
Yeah the Mongols were basically replaced by what had come before them...

They removed failing states and were replaced by states on the same model as the ones they removed.

The Turks changed the world and left more of a legacy then the Mongols. Turkic groups for centuries ran Central Asia, the Middle East, Balkans, Iran and large parts of India and Pakistan. And then of course the Jurchen left an important legacy.

sparten
14 Jun 06,, 06:06
The west is shaped and molded by the Roman Empire to this day. The west's influence upon this world can thusly be argued as Roman's influence upon this world, including Asia.

The Romans influenced everyone. Directly. No need for intermediatries. This is an empire which had four African emperors, and an Arab.
And Roman empire was larger in Asia, then it ever was in Europe.
Rome carried out more than its share of atrocities, but at the end of the day, its influence was overall positive.
And oh BTW, Gunnut, there was no "proper" Roman Empire. It was Imperium Romanum period.

kNikS
14 Jun 06,, 12:25
This is sort of the chicken or the egg problem. The Roman and Greek classical civilization have far more influencial than any other civilization in the world was due to their successor 's success (ie. Britain, France, and USA) and not because of anything intrinsic to those civilization. The concept of democracy and equal rights were certainly among them. However, if you bring a Roman Republic citizen to the modern day, they would only recognize a few remnants of their own civilazation.
I don’t know whence that idea about successors, but I find it way to overpumped, especially US. This is not a knee jerk – just that that in my educational system, which is quite balanced, this assumption doesn’t have its place (or I’m not noticing it) and certainly not so significantly as you are painting it. And just to say that I’m studying law – not that I’m bragging or acting as a wiseass, to the contrary – but merely the fact that I have a quite accurate literature in front of myself.

Also, on this one I agree with Spartan 105% – The Romans influenced everyone. Directly. No need for intermediaries Likewise, I will quote my “school” book – "…Roman state is the synthesis of experience of the overall Antique world…" What came after that is another story, in other words, apples and oranges.


Now if we are talking about civilizational impact (off topic), China has got Rome beat (in terms of longevity). During the same time period, China also developed "civilizational" traits that are still used today. One of them is the mantra of the U.S. Govt. -- "Civilian Control of the Military". Other's are standardized exam for government position, legalism, and confusianism. In fact, the current Chinese written and spoken language has change little since the days of the Qin dynasty, where it was first codified and established around 330 BCE. Confusianism is still the main traits amongst several Asian nations. Of course, just to define my standpoint in this discussion – I am not a supporter of Euro-centrism or West-Euro-centrism, infact, I’m pretty open for criticizing it.

But one thing must be considered – I’m quoting my book again: "There were states that lasted long and that were big in size, but they belong to other type, so called Oriental despoty. Their main characteristics are static social structure and not particularly developed trade. On the other hand, in Roman state there was a market, unknown to world till that time."


Now it can be argued that Classical Western Civilization had a much greater impact than the Chinese civilization of the same time period. And based on world wide evidence today you have a valid point. However, it was the success of Rome's western successor (France, Britain, Germany, and the US), and in some regards, the failure of Qing China to assert itself in the world stage during the age of imperialism that the bulk of the evidence is based on. The success of Rome's successor, not the success of the Roman civilization itself. As I already explained, point about successors is very moot. In certain aspects France and Germany could be considered as successors. Britain – I’m not negating the fact that impact of British Empire is also great, but the fact that it has enough similarities with Roman Empire (especially Byzantine) to consider it real successor. And this point is pretty weak if we are talking about US.


Now comparing Roman impact with the mongols is like comparing apples to oranges. The Mongols were a nomadic people who lived on tents.
That doesn’t disqualify them from comparison. And this description of Mongols says a lot about it.


Han Dynasty China is a better eastern equivalent of the Roman empire. It might be so, though such relation is somewhat different in "Roman part of the world".

sparten
14 Jun 06,, 13:38
China influenced the world greatly. But after the battle of Talas in 751 AD, the Chinese never again seriously (the Mongols are not Chinese despite the CCP attempts) threatened to expand beyond its borders.

And many Chinese influences came through intermedietries to the West, Silk came via the Parthians, paper and Gunpowder via the Arabs.

scotsboyuk
14 Jun 06,, 13:38
And Roman empire was larger in Asia, then it ever was in Europe.


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

sparten
14 Jun 06,, 13:51
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.

kNikS
14 Jun 06,, 14:05
China influenced the world greatly. But after the battle of Talas in 751 AD, the Chinese never again seriously (the Mongols are not Chinese despite the CCP attempts) threatened to expand beyond its borders.

And many Chinese influences came through intermedietries to the West, Silk came via the Parthians, paper and Gunpowder via the Arabs.
Of course, I never denied that.

scotsboyuk
14 Jun 06,, 14:10
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.

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
14 Jun 06,, 16:39
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.
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
14 Jun 06,, 16:46
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
14 Jun 06,, 19:41
And oh BTW, Gunnut, there was no "proper" Roman Empire. It was Imperium Romanum period.

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

IDonT
14 Jun 06,, 20:11
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
14 Jun 06,, 21:28
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
14 Jun 06,, 21:37
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
14 Jun 06,, 22:35
The world before the Mongol conquest

Count the contries that they conquered.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4d/Premongol.png

At Genghis Khan's death

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b1/Genghis_khan_empire_at_his_death.png

At its height

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/34/Mongol_Empireaccuratefinal.png

Division

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Map_Mongol_Empire1.jpg

sparten
15 Jun 06,, 06:50
Why don't you go and ask the people who ruled those places how the Mongols were?


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.
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
15 Jun 06,, 07:31
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.

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
15 Jun 06,, 08:20
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
15 Jun 06,, 09:41
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.

sparten
15 Jun 06,, 10:03
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.
Sir,
Thanks for that. But from what I have read in Arakhan's attempt his men had already failed to establish a beach head mainly due to the fact that their Close Quater Fighting skills were inferior to the Samurai, before the storms began. I'll read up further. :redface:

Blademaster
15 Jun 06,, 20:14
Not to mention the fact that shooting arrows from boats in a raging sea with swells more than 3 feet high moving up and down did nothing for the accuracy. Also the bowstrings getting wet from the water reduced the killing effectiveness of their arrows.

Besides, their mobility was highly restricted and thus their rounded shields and relatively lack of close combat weapons did not allow the Mongols to effectively establish a secured beachhold.

SRB
15 Jun 06,, 23:22
River boats and junk ships wipe Monogols.
Khan what to invade in one year so they gather all bigger boats in China and Korea plus force Chinese and Koreians to build more ships( which were build without good will read sabotage) only ships that came back to China were older ocean ships (generals and officers ships)

Simple words human stupidity

Triple C
16 Jun 06,, 07:25
See, this is what I don't understand. Considering how shipwrights and ship captains are probably considered skilled experts in the Mongol army and employed as such, why wouldn't the experienced Chinese and Koreans inform their Mongol masters of the typhoon season? They did possess the detailed knowledge of moonsoon winds and typhoons, after all.

SRB
16 Jun 06,, 09:28
See, this is what I don't understand. Considering how shipwrights and ship captains are probably considered skilled experts in the Mongol army and employed as such, why wouldn't the experienced Chinese and Koreans inform their Mongol masters of the typhoon season? They did possess the detailed knowledge of moonsoon winds and typhoons, after all.
On general's ships(big ones) there were skilled Chienese sailors, but on majorty of ships (smaller ones or river boats) were Chienese river sailors. Chinese and Koreans maybe didnt what to tell Monogols :biggrin: about Tayphoon because after all they were Monogol slaves and they had alibi Khan give them only one year to gather and build needed fleet.
If there was 100000 warriors on ships, 30000 came back to China, so we can estemate tht 10% were sailors rest are Monogol warriors, Chinese and Koreans could sacrface 10000 sailors (but I think they lost maximum 7000 sailors)

ASG
16 Jun 06,, 12:03
IMHO if the Mongols & the Romans came face to face on a battlefield the result would be a stand-off.

Since, Roman army would be majorly heavy infantry, they would lack the speed to chase down the Mongol Cavalry Archers. On the other hand Mongol Cavalry Archers would be unable to inflict much damage to the Roman Infantry, because of the armour and the shields.

Moreover, Mongols also lacked any prowess in seige technologies to take care of slow moving Roman Infantry, while the Romans had Onagers, Catapults and Ballistae, which would only inflict some damage to the fast moving Mongols.

A winner of any battle or war has a decisive edge over his adversary. In this case there is none.

Eventually, location & logistics would decide the fate of such a battle.

IDonT
16 Jun 06,, 14:27
IMHO if the Mongols & the Romans came face to face on a battlefield the result would be a stand-off.

Since, Roman army would be majorly heavy infantry, they would lack the speed to chase down the Mongol Cavalry Archers. On the other hand Mongol Cavalry Archers would be unable to inflict much damage to the Roman Infantry, because of the armour and the shields.

Moreover, Mongols also lacked any prowess in seige technologies to take care of slow moving Roman Infantry, while the Romans had Onagers, Catapults and Ballistae, which would only inflict some damage to the fast moving Mongols.

A winner of any battle or war has a decisive edge over his adversary. In this case there is none.

Eventually, location & logistics would decide the fate of such a battle.

You need to re-check your history.

1.) Roman tower sheild, armor, and the testudo cannot stop a recurved bow. According to Plutarch at the battle of Carrhae: "Parthian arrows nail their hands to their sheilds." 10,000 cavalry defeated 40,000 army that included 7 Legions. Only after when Parthia was politically weak that Rome, under Trajan, made its greatest incursion east. So yes, Mongol composite recurve bow will defeat the testudo.

2.) The Mongols have more advance seige weapons, thanks to the Chinese. Afterall, how else could they have laid seige to the hundreds of Chinese, Arabian, and Russian cities.

Rome do not stand a chance against a force that is 1,000 years ahead of them in tactics and technology. Rome could not even defeat the Parthia, which uses the same horse-archer/heavy cavalry combo. What hope could they have against the Mongols which uses the same combo but weilded it with discipline, stirrups, more powerful bows, and superior generals.

sparten
16 Jun 06,, 16:00
Rome do not stand a chance against a force that is 1,000 years ahead of them in tactics and technology. Rome could not even defeat the Parthia, which uses the same horse-archer/heavy cavalry combo. What hope could they have against the Mongols which uses the same combo but weilded it with discipline, stirrups, more powerful bows, and superior generals.
Capturing the Parthain capital 5 times is not defeating?
Clearly you are buying into a lot of myths.
Even after Shahpur I, they managed to capture Ctesiphon twice, despite being in the middle of the Crisis of the third century.

IDonT
16 Jun 06,, 17:00
Capturing the Parthain capital 5 times is not defeating?
Clearly you are buying into a lot of myths.
Even after Shahpur I, they managed to capture Ctesiphon twice, despite being in the middle of the Crisis of the third century.

Parthia in the 3rd century was not exactly strong. It was in the same position that the Western Roman Empire was in the 4th Century.

Furthermore, in the first century AD, the Parthian nobility had become more powerful due to concessions by the Parthian king granting them greater powers over the land and the peasantry. Internal weakness from within. The Parthian empire was more akin to fuedalism than the Rome or Han China were.

Nevertheless, the Roman's could never conquer Parthia.

sparten
16 Jun 06,, 18:24
Parthia in the 3rd century was not exactly strong. It was in the same position that the Western Roman Empire was in the 4th Century.

Furthermore, in the first century AD, the Parthian nobility had become more powerful due to concessions by the Parthian king granting them greater powers over the land and the peasantry. Internal weakness from within. The Parthian empire was more akin to fuedalism than the Rome or Han China were.

Nevertheless, the Roman's could never conquer Parthia.
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.

IDonT
16 Jun 06,, 20:39
What we have hear is a classic rivalry between two opposing schools of though in classical warfare.

In one hand you have the Roman Legions: a heavy infantry base army with minimal missile and cavalry support. Their main method of attack is to close with the enemy and win through sheer discipline, flexibility, and technological edge of the tower sheild and short sword. Cavalry and missile support were never a major actor in their victories.

In the other hand you have the Parthian Army (the Mongols adjusted for technology) a cavalry base army that utilizes horse archers and heavy cavalry (cataphracts). The classic nomad tactic of hammering the enemy from afar with arrows from a recurve bow until they are disorganized enough to deliver the heavy cavalry charge. In this type of warfare, infantry is more of a liability.

What both army have in common is the lack of combined arms team, which is their main weaknesses. Rome could never conquer the flight footed horse archers while Parthia could never cunduct seiges which require large amount of infantry. That was one of the main reason why the Parthian-Roman border more or less stayed where they are.

An army that employs combined arms tactics, such as Alexander the Great's: Phalanx infantry (anvil) and Companion Cavalry (hammer) that was used to such great lethality against Persia, in my opinion is much more effective.

The Qin and Han dynasties also employed a combined arms army of heavy infantry, light and heavy cavalry, and crossbow men. It is interesting to note, that Chinese army at this time period fought in similar manner as that 17th century Europe, utilizing lines of volley fire, substituting muskets for crossbows.

ASG
17 Jun 06,, 06:25
You need to re-check your history.

1.) Roman tower sheild, armor, and the testudo cannot stop a recurved bow. According to Plutarch at the battle of Carrhae: "Parthian arrows nail their hands to their sheilds." 10,000 cavalry defeated 40,000 army that included 7 Legions. Only after when Parthia was politically weak that Rome, under Trajan, made its greatest incursion east. So yes, Mongol composite recurve bow will defeat the testudo.

2.) The Mongols have more advance seige weapons, thanks to the Chinese. Afterall, how else could they have laid seige to the hundreds of Chinese, Arabian, and Russian cities.

Rome do not stand a chance against a force that is 1,000 years ahead of them in tactics and technology. Rome could not even defeat the Parthia, which uses the same horse-archer/heavy cavalry combo. What hope could they have against the Mongols which uses the same combo but weilded it with discipline, stirrups, more powerful bows, and superior generals.

Battle of Carrhae took place in 53 BC. That is almost 1500 years before Mongols existed.

There was no such thing as a gunpowder in that era(which BTW Chinese invented), so your point of Mongols having better seige capability is obvious & worthless.

Also quality of armour itself was very different in

1. 53 BC(Battle of Carrhae) - when only leather and bronze armour was used;

2. 450 AD(approx time of Western Roman Empire's decline) - when chain mail was used along with leather armour; and,

3. 1206 AD(The time of Mongol Unification) - the use of plate armour became more pronounced.

You are comparing armies from two completely different eras.

It is very obvious that a very bad army from today would be able to defeat the best army of 1500 years ago.

The point is, assume that the Roman Army from 150 A.D. having technologies from the time of Mongols. And then compare.

IDonT
17 Jun 06,, 13:17
Battle of Carrhae took place in 53 BC. That is almost 1500 years before Mongols existed.

There was no such thing as a gunpowder in that era(which BTW Chinese invented), so your point of Mongols having better seige capability is obvious & worthless.

Also quality of armour itself was very different in

1. 53 BC(Battle of Carrhae) - when only leather and bronze armour was used;

2. 450 AD(approx time of Western Roman Empire's decline) - when chain mail was used along with leather armour; and,

3. 1206 AD(The time of Mongol Unification) - the use of plate armour became more pronounced.

You are comparing armies from two completely different eras.

It is very obvious that a very bad army from today would be able to defeat the best army of 1500 years ago.

The point is, assume that the Roman Army from 150 A.D. having technologies from the time of Mongols. And then compare.

I am trying to be fair here. But if you really want to compare 12th century technology vs Rome at its height fine.

1.) CHinese Seige capability was in no way dependant on gun powder.
The Chinese were the first to use the counter weight catapult, or trebuche in European terms. Take a look at them here.
authors.history-forum.com/liang_jieming/chinesesiegewarfare/index-english16062006.html

2.) BAttle of carrhae the Roman Legions wore the Lorica Hamata, chain armor. It was only during the reign of Augustus that they switched the Lorica Segmentata, or plate armor.

Here are the reasons why Rome military technology is not as good as 12th century technology.

Invention of the Stirrup - Stirrups changed the basic tactics of mounted warfare and made cavalry more important. Braced against the stirrups, a knight could deliver a blow with a lance that employed the full weight and momentum of horse and rider together. The addition of stirrups also allowed a rider to use a longer (and vastly more powerful) bow by standing up on the stirrups. Standing on the stirrups also provide a more stable firing platform, giving more accurate fire.

COmposite Recurved Bow - The bows were made of three layers; horn bellies, a wood core and "ears", also known as "siyahs", and a back made of layers of sinew. The entire bow was then wrapped with birch bark or sometimes fish skins. The arrows shot by these composite bows had enormous striking power, which allowed the arrows to pierce both plate and chain mail armor.

Counter Weight Catapult - This type of seige engine can fire larger projectiles at much longer range than anything the ROman army can field.

Medicine - Legionaires are expensive to create from scratch. The fatality rate of the Legions on campaigns were much higher than the Mongols.

ASG
17 Jun 06,, 13:59
Here are the reasons why Rome military technology is not as good as 12th century technology.


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.

troung
18 Jun 06,, 03:55
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.

The Byzantine army made use of mounted archers during their time.

gilgamesh
18 Jun 06,, 06:02
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
18 Jun 06,, 06:35
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
18 Jun 06,, 06:52
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.

ASG
18 Jun 06,, 12:07
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
19 Jun 06,, 21:22
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.

ASG
20 Jun 06,, 18:32
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
20 Jun 06,, 18:50
...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
22 Jun 06,, 14:29
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
22 Jun 06,, 21:39
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
22 Jun 06,, 21:40
The Holy Roman Empire
"Neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire" Voltaire

Just couldn't resist :)

That one was used on Jeopardy. :)

Dogukan
03 Jul 06,, 18:59
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
10 Aug 06,, 17:19
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
10 Aug 06,, 17:34
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
10 Aug 06,, 18:08
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 :tongue:

astralis
10 Aug 06,, 18:59
canmoore,


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.

Low-tech
10 Aug 06,, 23:47
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
23 Aug 06,, 13:35
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
06 Nov 06,, 22:19
Romans would totaly kill all of their insignificant souls...

gilgamesh
29 Nov 06,, 15:53
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
31 Jan 07,, 05:49
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.



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
31 Jan 07,, 06:04
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
31 Jan 07,, 06:07
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
31 Jan 07,, 06:11
^^^

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
31 Jan 07,, 13:25
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
31 Jan 07,, 17:54
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 Feb 07,, 02:36
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 (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-37148.html)

xerxes
01 Feb 07,, 03:39
^^

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 Feb 07,, 04:39
^^

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
01 Feb 07,, 05:54
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 Feb 07,, 11:13
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.

demoore
22 Apr 07,, 05:35
More than 1000 years separates the two empires.
Another poll, which between the Mongol (1200) army and the actual Chinese army would have won? Or the Mongol (1200) army and actual Swiss army?

Inst
27 Apr 07,, 16:56
Hey, on the other hand, the Mongols were nomads. They wouldn't have had any real technological advance in 1200 years. Or actually, when did the Mongols finally go up to the composite bow, anyways?

IDonT
30 Apr 07,, 22:08
Hey, on the other hand, the Mongols were nomads. They wouldn't have had any real technological advance in 1200 years. Or actually, when did the Mongols finally go up to the composite bow, anyways?

The Mongols had used the composite bows for centuries before Genghis. What the Mongols have that the other nomad groups did not was the implementation of discipline, organization, and merit base advancement. A single Mongolian Tumen commanded by Subutai will defeat any roman army sent to face it.

zraver
30 Apr 07,, 23:57
The Mongols had used the composite bows for centuries before Genghis. What the Mongols have that the other nomad groups did not was the implementation of discipline, organization, and merit base advancement. A single Mongolian Tumen commanded by Subutai will defeat any roman army sent to face it.

not quite, Sudedei was one of the best, but Rome had generals who were equally capable. The Mongols would be hard pressed to beat Scipio or Julius Ceaser.

astralis
01 May 07,, 02:24
zraver,

different types of fighting. did caesar or scipio ever deal with horse archers, much? scipio probably had more experience with his african fights, but caesar's accomplishments were largely against other romans or the gauls, whom didn't really go for the horse archer thing (understandable given terrain).

ExNavyAmerican
01 May 07,, 17:56
The Romans might have been defeated the first several times around, but as Scipio proved in fighting Hannibal in Italy, Romans could adapt, and they'd fight the Mongols on ground where the Mongols' numbers would be negligible, and then they'd use their far superior technology to beat them. And always remember, the Romans too had their share of good horseman out of Sarmatia, and Spain. They also had good archers out of Syria, so, in the end, I believe that the Romans would win against the Mongols by a landslide.

astralis
01 May 07,, 18:32
exnavyamerican,


then they'd use their far superior technology to beat them.

really? the mongols had stirrups, their bow, and siege weapons from china. certainly the mongols dusted the polish and the hungarians, and their armor was beyond what rome had.

in any case, the mongols were beaten by the mamelukes, and no one else, really (the japanese hardly count: they really WERE saved by the kamikaze). song china stopped them for a while with mass-produced gunpowder weapons (firebolts, guns, grenades, flamethrowers, rockets, poison-gas rockets, even!), but in the end, even the song went under. and the song were able to raise men far more easily than rome, even in rome's heyday.

meanwhile the romans had their arse handed to them by the huns, the persians, the kelts, carthage (for a while), the parthians, the goths...IIRC rome's main strength was its iron discipline, and once that got replaced with mercenaries...

all hypothetical but for some reason this topic seems to be a fun one :biggrin:

ExNavyAmerican
02 May 07,, 03:56
exnavyamerican,



really? the mongols had stirrups, their bow, and siege weapons from china. certainly the mongols dusted the polish and the hungarians, and their armor was beyond what rome had.

in any case, the mongols were beaten by the mamelukes, and no one else, really (the japanese hardly count: they really WERE saved by the kamikaze). song china stopped them for a while with mass-produced gunpowder weapons (firebolts, guns, grenades, flamethrowers, rockets, poison-gas rockets, even!), but in the end, even the song went under. and the song were able to raise men far more easily than rome, even in rome's heyday.

meanwhile the romans had their arse handed to them by the huns, the persians, the kelts, carthage (for a while), the parthians, the goths...IIRC rome's main strength was its iron discipline, and once that got replaced with mercenaries...

all hypothetical but for some reason this topic seems to be a fun one :biggrin:

The Romans DID have superior technology. There is no doubt about it. A lot of it was derived from Greek study, but from aqueducts to the steam engine: the Romans were advanced. In contrast, the Mongols didn't even have metalworking at the time of their conquesst.

They got their siege weapons from China, but they didn't tug them across Asia into Europe, and, guess what: the Romans had siege weapons too-weapons superior to those of China: i.e. the ballisti. And their armor was NOT superior to Roman armor. Roman armor was highly adavanced being a cross between scaled, and chain mail. Whereas the Mongols wore leather. And again: the Romans also had calvary-very good calvary. As a matter of fact, each legion's auxillary force contained a force of Archers, as well as calvary.

Song China was beaten because they helped the Mongols conquer the northern Jin Empire, and in so doing gave the Mongols siege technology, and the knowledge of how to use siege weapons. If they hadn't of done this, the Mongols would have been defeated very easily by the technologically superior Song Empire.

Most of what you referred to when talking about Roman defeats happened before the Empire was even formed; or when they were about to fall. And the Romans, with Gothic support, were able to defeat the the Huns at the battle of Chalons-Sur-Marne in the year 451. The Celts were able to drive the Romans from Britain only after centuries of the Romans dominating the island, and they were only driven from it at the end of their life. Carthage doesn't come in the same package as the Mongols; their methods of fighting, their tech, and the fact that the used infantry makes them radically different from the Mogols. Not very good for comparisson. Anyway, they were completely destroyed by Rome. The Persians wre subdued, but never defeated, several times by the Romans, and were eventually defeated by the Byzantines (Eastern Rome) in the 6th, and 7th centuries. The strength or Rome did not lie solely with its iron discipline, and saying so is an afront to history. And the Romans' main problem towards the end of their life was not mercenaries, but the fact that there were too few Roman to fill the ranks anymore-ethnic Romans wre largely killed off in a plague in the 4th century.

And mercenaries, by the way, were extremely disciplined fighters. The main contingent of the Carthaginian army was made up of Numidian Mercenaries, and you've already pointed out Carthage's fighting ability.

zraver
02 May 07,, 04:27
exnavyamerican,



really? the mongols had stirrups, their bow, and siege weapons from china. certainly the mongols dusted the polish and the hungarians, and their armor was beyond what rome had.

in any case, the mongols were beaten by the mamelukes, and no one else, really (the japanese hardly count: they really WERE saved by the kamikaze). song china stopped them for a while with mass-produced gunpowder weapons (firebolts, guns, grenades, flamethrowers, rockets, poison-gas rockets, even!), but in the end, even the song went under. and the song were able to raise men far more easily than rome, even in rome's heyday.

meanwhile the romans had their arse handed to them by the huns, the persians, the kelts, carthage (for a while), the parthians, the goths...IIRC rome's main strength was its iron discipline, and once that got replaced with mercenaries...

all hypothetical but for some reason this topic seems to be a fun one :biggrin:

A couple of misconceptions.

1- The Mongols after the death of the first two generations were really not all that feirce, that is why the Mamlukes beat them. It is doubtful the Mongols had the staying power to subjagate Rome. great parts of Europe are not conductive to horse archers or cavalry in general. Ther eis a reason infantry dominated ancient Europe.

2- Roman seige engines like ballista onegars, and trebuchets were superior to Chinese manpowered engines. Rome also had superior engineers and massive manpower reserves. It was not until the late imperial age that Roman legions declined in numbers and skill.

3- Rome had superior strategic mobility along the coast. She could move entire armies to threatened cities with impunity. While the Mongols would have controlled the interior, but the bulk of the population and wealth was along the coast.

4- In tems of technology its 6 of one of half dozen of another. No Army before the industrial age was so devoted to war. Romes technology was leathal and very effective. Lorica segmentata was nearly arrow proof even vs Mongol bows at all but the closest ranges. The Scutum was the best sheild in the ancient world, Roman helms and the segmentata made plunging fire all but useless, and the pilum could do duty as a pike or a javalin. And if the gladius ever got into use it would be all over for the horsemen. Given Rome's many victories over horse archers and cavalry based armies she could easily adapt to Mongol tactics over time.

astralis
02 May 07,, 07:46
so, the question is,

if rome could do all this- why couldn't any of the empires whom faced the mongol hordes do this? japanese lucked out, russians got beat, polish got beat, hungarians got beat, chinese got beat, caliphate got beat, persians got beat...

ExNavyAmerican
02 May 07,, 08:02
so, the question is,

if rome could do all this- why couldn't any of the empires whom faced the mongol hordes do this? japanese lucked out, russians got beat, polish got beat, hungarians got beat, chinese got beat, caliphate got beat, persians got beat...

As you said, the Japanese lucked out, but if it were not for the typhoon, they probaly would have gotten beat because they weren't very advanced.

The Europeans, and Slavic peoples of the middle ages were not very advanced, there was a lack of unity, and thereby a lack of manpower to terminate the Mongol advance; such was not the case in the Roman Empire.

The Arabs were weakened, and distracted by the crusader states, and were not ready for the Mongol onslaught. Also, the Moslem empire was no longer united, so the same problems I outlined above could also apply here. And the Persians were vastly outnumbered.

China only lost because they taught the Mongols the art of siege warfare for the purpose of defeating their northern neighbor the Jin Empire-a very stupid thing to do-and the Mongols turned on the Chinese.

None of these problems plagued the Romans until the 4th, and 5th centuries.

deadkenny
02 May 07,, 14:31
The Europeans, and Slavic peoples of the middle ages were not very advanced, ....

They were, for the most part, far more 'advanced' in the 1240's than the (Western) Roman Empire had been - certainly in terms of military 'hardware'. Hungarian or Polish 'knights' from 1240 would have 'crushed' a Roman legion, as they would have crushed just about any infantry short of a disiplined pike carrying formation. The 'core' of the (Western) Roman Empire military for centuries was the shortshort wielding infantry in 'loose' formation. They were fortunate in that they didn't have to face many foes with good heavy cavalry. The Romans did well against the spear carrying infantry of the Hellenistic world in the east, and the even 'looser' barbarian hordes of the north and west. However it was exactly those opponents with good cavalry (e.g. Parthians, Huns) that they struggled against.

Amled
02 May 07,, 14:31
3- Rome had superior strategic mobility along the coast. She could move entire armies to threatened cities with impunity. While the Mongols would have controlled the interior, but the bulk of the population and wealth was along the coast.

Case in point being Hannibal after the Battle of Cannae, where he never had the numbers nor the siege train to march on Rome, nor any of the heavily fortified Roman cities.
Also as Quintus Fabius Maximus showed when faced with Hannibal. In that Rome had an uncanny skill of fielding new legions; especially when fighting in the home provinces, in no small part due to their shorter lines of communications.
Whereas, that unless the Mongols had access to Chinese siege expertise, then they too might win battles and loose the war, due to their extended lines of communications.

pdf27
02 May 07,, 15:50
They were fortunate in that they didn't have to face many foes with good heavy cavalry.
Ummm... there was no such thing as heavy cavalry until the invention of the stirrup, quite some time after the fall of the Roman empire. Prior to the stirrup, fighting from horseback was rather a chancy business.

ExNavyAmerican
02 May 07,, 16:37
Case in point being Hannibal after the Battle of Cannae, where he never had the numbers nor the siege train to march on Rome, nor any of the heavily fortified Roman cities.
Also as Quintus Fabius Maximus showed when faced with Hannibal. In that Rome had an uncanny skill of fielding new legions; especially when fighting in the home provinces, in no small part due to their shorter lines of communications.
Whereas, that unless the Mongols had access to Chinese siege expertise, then they too might win battles and loose the war, due to their extended lines of communications.

That seems to me to e the greatest problem; they may have had Chinese siege experts, ut it would have been extremely tricky to get them from China to Asia Minor, Dacia, or Palestine.

astralis
02 May 07,, 18:20
exnavyamerican,


That seems to me to e the greatest problem; they may have had Chinese siege experts, ut it would have been extremely tricky to get them from China to Asia Minor, Dacia, or Palestine.

didn't stop the mongols from razing numerous persian and caliphate cities to the ground. the mongols WERE stopped in their second try against hungary, i believe, but roman fortifications didn't match that of the medieval castles.

as for manpower, i suppose it depends on the period of time you're talking about. rome had some difficulty replacing the 25,000 men lost at teutoberg forest, for example.

and unlike the case of hannibal, where he tried to unsuccessfully win roman vassals and cities to his side...the mongols would have razed them all. that would no doubt cut into the manpower base...

regarding


The Celts were able to drive the Romans from Britain only after centuries of the Romans dominating the island, and they were only driven from it at the end of their life.

not just celts in britain, but the ones on the european continent. prior to the carthiginians, these celts were known as the greatest threat to rome, having captured rome before.

finally, it looks to me that the strongest argument against the mongols here would probably be the environment. mongols traditionally did well in wide-open spaces, where their horse cavalry and archers could easily beat the opposition. however, in wooded areas (where infantry is far better), they did not do very well at all...and infantry was rome's strength. i don't think it would have been a problem of bringing/building seige weapons, as the mongols did use seige weapons against baghdad IIRC.

zraver
02 May 07,, 19:01
They were, for the most part, far more 'advanced' in the 1240's than the (Western) Roman Empire had been - certainly in terms of military 'hardware'. Hungarian or Polish 'knights' from 1240 would have 'crushed' a Roman legion, as they would have crushed just about any infantry short of a disiplined pike carrying formation. The 'core' of the (Western) Roman Empire military for centuries was the shortshort wielding infantry in 'loose' formation. They were fortunate in that they didn't have to face many foes with good heavy cavalry. The Romans did well against the spear carrying infantry of the Hellenistic world in the east, and the even 'looser' barbarian hordes of the north and west. However it was exactly those opponents with good cavalry (e.g. Parthians, Huns) that they struggled against.

I dissagree, Rome sacked the parthian capitol several times and took Armenia and mesopotamia form them. The manipulative legion was not a loose formation, although it was flexible. While the gladius was the real killing tool of the romans, it was not the only tool. The Legions had a large number of slingers an archers as well as cavalry, javlainers, and engineers. in one repsect the Mongols were like the Romans. They borrowed technology without batting an eye. the Gladius or Gladius Hispania came from Gual, the slingers from Greece, they used composite bows and adpated the cavalry tactics of the Huns and other proto-turkish tribes. The Pilum could also due duty as a pike, and onc einside the legiosn formation the gladius/scutum combo would be like a glock and bowie knife vs a bolt action 30-06 in close quaters fight.

Vs a Hungarian force Rome would have smashed the kights into peices. Heavy cavalry is a short ranged shock weapon fit only for use inside of a combined arms formation. Roman legions could out march any cavalry force in the world expcet the mongols, and could run knights to ground and set up seiges, where Rome almost never lost.

The heavy cavalry faield agaist the Muslims, failed agaist the Mongols and later faield agaisnt the infantry. Its rise to prominance was due more to the politcal nature of Europe than any military advantage.


finally, it looks to me that the strongest argument against the mongols here would probably be the environment. mongols traditionally did well in wide-open spaces, where their horse cavalry and archers could easily beat the opposition. however, in wooded areas (where infantry is far better), they did not do very well at all...and infantry was rome's strength. i don't think it would have been a problem of bringing/building seige weapons, as the mongols did use seige weapons against baghdad IIRC

not just open spaces. Rome with a massive merchant marine (strategic mobility) and its critical population and wealth centers clustered in easily defensable (vs cavalry) locations along the coast, and sheer size that required ocean going capabilities to move quickly could have pinned the Mongols down via seige warfare. Asong as Rome could keep the horsemen out of Italy, Greece, Egypt, Spain, and Judea she would eventually win. The parts of the empire most vulnerable to the Mongols were the elast vaualbe to the Romans. One has only to look at the Empires resilency in the face of wave after wave of invasion taking away large but unimportant portions of the empire. it wasn't until the tax and legion systems collapsed that Italy felt the permament heel of the invaders boot.

deadkenny
02 May 07,, 20:48
I dissagree, Rome sacked the parthian capitol several times and took Armenia and mesopotamia form them. The manipulative legion was not a loose formation, although it was flexible. While the gladius was the real killing tool of the romans, it was not the only tool. The Legions had a large number of slingers an archers as well as cavalry, javlainers, and engineers. in one repsect the Mongols were like the Romans. They borrowed technology without batting an eye. the Gladius or Gladius Hispania came from Gual, the slingers from Greece, they used composite bows and adpated the cavalry tactics of the Huns and other proto-turkish tribes. The Pilum could also due duty as a pike, and onc einside the legiosn formation the gladius/scutum combo would be like a glock and bowie knife vs a bolt action 30-06 in close quaters fight.

Vs a Hungarian force Rome would have smashed the kights into peices. Heavy cavalry is a short ranged shock weapon fit only for use inside of a combined arms formation. Roman legions could out march any cavalry force in the world expcet the mongols, and could run knights to ground and set up seiges, where Rome almost never lost.

The heavy cavalry faield agaist the Muslims, failed agaist the Mongols and later faield agaisnt the infantry. Its rise to prominance was due more to the politcal nature of Europe than any military advantage....

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then, as we're not likely to see any Hungarian 'knights' vs. Roman legion battles in the foreseeable future. ;)

The Roman manipular formation was 'looser' than a phalanx formation for example - a sort of 'checker board' formation with intentional 'gaps' that provided great flexibility of maneuver (far more than a phalanx for example). My understanding of the 'pilum' is that it was not suitable for use as a 'pike'. It was shorter for one thing, and intended to be thrown. It also had an extended iron 'spearhead' that was intended to 'bend' once it had penetrated an opponent's armour or shield, thereby encumbering him but not being reusable by the opponent. Once the legionare had thrown his pilum he would close in with the shortsword. It was not my intention to state that Rome was unable to ever defeat any contemporary foe with cavalry, but they did in fact have more difficulty with them than they did against predominately infantry foes. Further, the Hungarian knights of almost an entire millenium later would have been far ahead of Rome, or Roman contemporaries, in terms of equipment - whether that's swords, shields, lances, stirrups or fortifications and siege engines. I do not believe that any advantage in Roman 'organization' would have been sufficient to overcome that.

deadkenny
02 May 07,, 20:54
Ummm... there was no such thing as heavy cavalry until the invention of the stirrup, quite some time after the fall of the Roman empire. Prior to the stirrup, fighting from horseback was rather a chancy business.

Well, not exactly - 'heavy' cavalry is not defined in terms of a stirrup. Alexander the Great made very effective use of the 'shock' effect of his cavalry - effectively employing it in a 'heavy' cavalry role. The Persians would have been quite surprized to learn that fighting from horseback was a 'chancy business'.

IDonT
02 May 07,, 21:19
The fact that the Mongols were horse archers have nothing to do with their military capability. Comparing them to other horse archers is like comparing a Roman Legion to a Gaulic army base on the fact that they fought on foot with a sword and a shield. Totally different animal. The mongols were a highly discipline and highly mobile force, supported by a mature logistic system and superbly led.

Here is a reason why a single Mongolian Tumen (10,000 troops) under Subutai can beat any army a Romans can field.

Mobility and Disciline

The ability to appear suddenly without warning cannot be underestimated. People get so caught up with firepower and defence that they forget the third factor of mobility.

Superior mobility provides the Mongolian Tumen the best chance of victory such as:
1.) choosing the time and place to fight
2.) fighting only when it has an advantage, retreating when it doesn't
3.) lead to better terrain scanning
4.) faster way of figuring out at which route to march an army
5.) faster assimiliation of local knowledge

Being more manueverable than a typical Roman army gives a Mongolian Tumen far greater flexibility in how to employ its forces. The feined retreat is one always quoted example. It has been done before including the Romans. But no Roman army ever retreated 100 miles and spreading out its enemy over a 30 mile front and defeating each outnumbered section in detailed.

Furthermore, having a more manueverable army leads to flanking manuevers that are a hundred miles apart. That makes the Roman Ceasar or Scipio believed that two separate armies are attacking it thus making them split their army, making them susceptable to destruction in detail.

A slower army can never dictate when to fight against a more mobile army. They are subject to when the enemy wants to fight, and it is usually during times of great distress. A well led, highly mobile, and highly motivated and disciplined force is very hard to beat.

They were the first disciple of the shock and awe. Note: Never in this post have I talked about military tech.

zraver
02 May 07,, 22:45
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then, as we're not likely to see any Hungarian 'knights' vs. Roman legion battles in the foreseeable future. ;)

The Roman manipular formation was 'looser' than a phalanx formation for example - a sort of 'checker board' formation with intentional 'gaps' that provided great flexibility of maneuver (far more than a phalanx for example). My understanding of the 'pilum' is that it was not suitable for use as a 'pike'. It was shorter for one thing, and intended to be thrown. It also had an extended iron 'spearhead' that was intended to 'bend' once it had penetrated an opponent's armour or shield, thereby encumbering him but not being reusable by the opponent. Once the legionare had thrown his pilum he would close in with the shortsword. It was not my intention to state that Rome was unable to ever defeat any contemporary foe with cavalry, but they did in fact have more difficulty with them than they did against predominately infantry foes. Further, the Hungarian knights of almost an entire millenium later would have been far ahead of Rome, or Roman contemporaries, in terms of equipment - whether that's swords, shields, lances, stirrups or fortifications and siege engines. I do not believe that any advantage in Roman 'organization' would have been sufficient to overcome that.

The pilum was sturdy enough to penetrate armor or sheild with just the power of a single throwing arm. ye sit would deform to render it useless and unusable for return fire and to make continued carryingof the sheild impractical, however imagine that hardened armor piercing tip impacting a pony or horse warrior with a 1000lbs of charging horse behind it.

As for technology, the armor of the Hungarian knight was probalby of inferior quality, it was made over long winter nights by the warriors themselves or local smiths of questionable ability. Rome was an industrial power with standardized levels of equipment and quality produced by dedicated craftsmen who were well versed in their trade. A Roman armorer didn't make mail as a side job.

Hungarian mail was a double mail and covered more of the body, but it was still iron (of questiopnable smithing) and was very heavy and restricted mobility. Roman mail or segmentata was not the principle defensive technology, that belongs to the Scutum that was far in advance of any medievil shield, and the shield also acted as a weapon and the lighter weight of the legionares protection increased mobility. The Roman legionare was also in superb physical condition, the knight maybe, maybe not.

from the time of Constantine to the Mongol invasion, military technology evolved, but it did not progress.


Here is a reason why a single Mongolian Tumen (10,000 troops) under Subutai can beat any army a Romans can field.

Mobility and Disciline

The ability to appear suddenly without warning cannot be underestimated. People get so caught up with firepower and defence that they forget the third factor of mobility.

Superior mobility provides the Mongolian Tumen the best chance of victory such as:
1.) choosing the time and place to fight
2.) fighting only when it has an advantage, retreating when it doesn't
3.) lead to better terrain scanning
4.) faster way of figuring out at which route to march an army
5.) faster assimiliation of local knowledge

10,000 men vs armies of 50,000+ legionares and support troops. I don't think so.

1-10,000 men is not enough to affec tthe reduction of the Roman cities and centers of gravity.

2- Roma has superior strategic mobility along the coast, and untouchable stragtic depth in North Africa, Greece (Thermopylae anyone), Britian, Spain and Italy, Scicily, sardina, Corsica etc. None of these areas will sustain a horse army for long.

3- Rome had great commanders every bity as good as Sudedei namely Scipio, Julius Ceaser, Maximus etc.

4- Roman discipline and professional standards were every bit as high as the Mongols

5- No one beat Rome when it came to copying new technologies and ideas.

6- Rome knew its own Terrain and the road system made the legiosn nearly as fast as the Tumen overland.

7- in the logn run the very durable legion could outmarch a Tumen once the Mongols remuda was worn down through loses or campaigning.

Blademaster
02 May 07,, 22:50
Whereas, that unless the Mongols had access to Chinese siege expertise, then they too might win battles and loose the war, due to their extended lines of communications.

A Mongol could cross 1000 miles in 10 days using the ancient Mongolese version of Pony Express. That tells us how good their lines of communication were.

Blademaster
02 May 07,, 22:57
10,000 men vs armies of 50,000+ legionares and support troops. I don't think so.

1-10,000 men is not enough to affec tthe reduction of the Roman cities and centers of gravity.

2- Roma has superior strategic mobility along the coast, and untouchable stragtic depth in North Africa, Greece (Thermopylae anyone), Britian, Spain and Italy, Scicily, sardina, Corsica etc. None of these areas will sustain a horse army for long.

3- Rome had great commanders every bity as good as Sudedei namely Scipio, Julius Ceaser, Maximus etc.

4- Roman discipline and professional standards were every bit as high as the Mongols

5- No one beat Rome when it came to copying new technologies and ideas.

6- Rome knew its own Terrain and the road system made the legiosn nearly as fast as the Tumen overland.

7- in the logn run the very durable legion could outmarch a Tumen once the Mongols remuda was worn down through loses or campaigning.


Obviously you forgot how good the Chinese armies were when facing against the Mongols. They were every bit as professional and disciplined as the Romans and they had far superior weaponry and their logistic chains was not something to sneer at. The Chinese did have good commanders but what did them in was that the Mongols totally defeated the Chinese decision cycle and rendered any capacity to learn from defeats. The Mongols rarely ever gave their enemies to learn from mistakes. Romans were victorious over the longer run because they had the luxury of learning their mistakes and applying their lessons to the next battle or campaign. When Romans face against the Mongols, the Romans won't have time to learn their mistakes.

pdf27
02 May 07,, 23:32
A Mongol could cross 1000 miles in 10 days using the ancient Mongolese version of Pony Express. That tells us how good their lines of communication were.
Lines of communications in this particular case appears to be referring to supplies, not information. Incidentally, the Roman postal service would typically move a despatch 170 miles per day (using a relay system - some sources claim up to 500 miles per day, which I have trouble believing). That's nearly double the speed of the Mongols, showing the benefits of having a decent road system. The Romans also have shipping available, thus can use the Mediterranean as a major shortcut when appropriate.

Officer of Engineers
02 May 07,, 23:42
Something needs to be said about that. The Mongols mode of transportation is also their logistics train. Each Mongol warrior rides 5 horses. During a fast march, he would pick one horse to drink blood from to keep up his strength until he puts the horse down for good for a meal.

In times of desperation, he can eat up to four horses (or share as an army goes) and arrive fresh enough for battle.

IDonT
02 May 07,, 23:58
10,000 men vs armies of 50,000+ legionares and support troops. I don't think so.

1-10,000 men is not enough to affec tthe reduction of the Roman cities and centers of gravity.

2- Roma has superior strategic mobility along the coast, and untouchable stragtic depth in North Africa, Greece (Thermopylae anyone), Britian, Spain and Italy, Scicily, sardina, Corsica etc. None of these areas will sustain a horse army for long.

3- Rome had great commanders every bity as good as Sudedei namely Scipio, Julius Ceaser, Maximus etc.

4- Roman discipline and professional standards were every bit as high as the Mongols

5- No one beat Rome when it came to copying new technologies and ideas.

6- Rome knew its own Terrain and the road system made the legiosn nearly as fast as the Tumen overland.

7- in the logn run the very durable legion could outmarch a Tumen once the Mongols remuda was worn down through loses or campaigning.

1.) You are assuming that a single tumen would conquer Rome. In that regard I agree with you it can't. It would take the same amount of forces that conquered Song China and the Kwarazim Empire and taking into account that a big sea is in the smack middle of the empire.

2.) Say you have 100,000 troops guarding a 100 mile frontier. You have to disperse your forces in order to defend your strong points. You can't have them all at one time. That means that superior Mongolian mobility can fight and destroy smaller units in detail.

3.) Secondly, never underestimate the ability of superior mobility to frustrate the Roman commanders. If Scipio has his 20 legions in battle formation at A, why would Subutai attack him there when he can force him to defend B? A large enemy force like that travels in separate columns, which can be attack independently and wipe out with out the aid of the others.

4.) A roman Legion can march about 30 miles a day. A single tumen can travel 100 miles a day.

5.) The main problem with an infantry based army, no matter how well led or motivated, is that it cannot forced a well led cavalry army to a fight. It cannot dictate the terms of the battle. In simpliest terms, the Mongol Tumen can run away if it is in trouble, while a Roman Legion can't.

Ironduke
03 May 07,, 03:48
Where would this battle take place? Most of Europe in classical times would not be exactly conducive to the type of warfare the Mongols carried out... Europe has a very complex terrain, especially in the areas ruled by the Romans.

There's no way in any time that the Romans would have had an advantage over their enemies in the steppes of Asia and the plains of eastern Europe. Geography could have also well confounded the Mongols in southern and western Europe.

The maximum extent of the Mongols in Europe was limited to Russia, Poland, and Hungary. I suspect the Mongols passed into eastern Hungary, directly from the north, where the Carpathians narrow and there's easy passage.

troung
03 May 07,, 03:56
2- Roma has superior strategic mobility along the coast, and untouchable stragtic depth in North Africa, Greece (Thermopylae anyone), Britian, Spain and Italy, Scicily, sardina, Corsica etc. None of these areas will sustain a horse army for long.

They wouldn't have to sustain them for very long as they would simply create a local famine and keep moving. And of course fighting along the coast already implies the Mongols would have crushed field armies on the way.

Taking North Africa cuts off grain to Rome. If the Romans are hemmed inside of Italy then the richest parts of the empire are open to be sacked. A Mongol army feeding off local resources in grain growing provinces means a famine in the empire.

If a horse army doesn’t care for the local population at all then you will be surprised how much a province can feed a horse army. And then one had to factor in the refugee issue.

Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica might make nice final stands after the Mongols have conquered the mainland, but the Mongols did build a navy and reached (and briefly took with a small force) Java.


The Legions had a large number of slingers an archers as well as cavalry, javlainers, and engineers. in one repsect the Mongols were like the Romans.

The javelin is outranged by the reflex bow: as are most Roman weapons. The Mongol cavalryman might carry 40-60 arrows which took of less space then a javelin of which only a handful could be carried. Roman cavalry could likely not stand up to Mongol cavalry either in shock (compared to heavy Mongol cavalry) and skirmishing or numbers. And the Mongols had engineers of their own.


in any case, the mongols were beaten by the mamelukes, and no one else, really (the japanese hardly count: they really WERE saved by the kamikaze). song china stopped them for a while with mass-produced gunpowder weapons (firebolts, guns, grenades, flamethrowers, rockets, poison-gas rockets, even!), but in the end, even the song went under. and the song were able to raise men far more easily than rome, even in rome's heyday.

They lost in Java and Vietnam if one considers the Yuan a Mongol state.


That seems to me to e the greatest problem; they may have had Chinese siege experts, ut it would have been extremely tricky to get them from China to Asia Minor, Dacia, or Palestine. They got their siege weapons from China, but they didn't tug them across Asia into Europe, and, guess what: the Romans had siege weapons too-weapons superior to those of China: i.e. the ballisti.

Mongol siege weapons were brought into the Middle East: Hulegu’s sack of Baghdad is an example of siege weapons tugged across Asia. And before he used them on Baghdad he used them on Persia.

Mongol siege equipment is what turned them from a force of cavalry raiders to empire builders as unlike past steppe raiders the Mongols could reliably seize a defended city.


And their armor was NOT superior to Roman armor. Roman armor was highly adavanced being a cross between scaled, and chain mail. Whereas the Mongols wore leather. And again: the Romans also had calvary-very good calvary. As a matter of fact, each legion's auxillary force contained a force of Archers, as well as calvary.

The Mongols were a force of horse-archers and could field large numbers with lots of horses. Rome's cavalry was small in comparison to the force the Mongols could bring to the field. And not all Mongols had leather once they left Mongolia: armor was acquired through their victories so by the time they reached the Middle East armor was more common.


The Mongols after the death of the first two generations were really not all that feirce, that is why the Mamlukes beat them. It is doubtful the Mongols had the staying power to subjagate Rome. great parts of Europe are not conductive to horse archers or cavalry in general. Ther eis a reason infantry dominated ancient Europe.

The Mamlukes won in no small part because the Illkhanate was forced to go to war with the Golden Horde and sent only a rump force against the Mamlukes: who by the way fought in a similar style to the Mongols and backed away from sending forces to help the Caliph because they knew they couldn't face the Hulegu.

And the Mongols kept control over China, Persia, Central Asia and Russia for quite some time.


3- Rome had superior strategic mobility along the coast. She could move entire armies to threatened cities with impunity. While the Mongols would have controlled the interior, but the bulk of the population and wealth was along the coast.

And that bulk of the population and wealth would be subject to raids and sieges by the Mongols. And there is the political issue of being in that situation, with cities full of refugees causing disease and food storages.


1-10,000 men is not enough to affec tthe reduction of the Roman cities and centers of gravity.

Turko-Mongol forces could number over 100,000 for an invasion.

deadkenny
03 May 07,, 18:37
The pilum was sturdy enough to penetrate armor or sheild with just the power of a single throwing arm. ye sit would deform to render it useless and unusable for return fire and to make continued carryingof the sheild impractical, however imagine that hardened armor piercing tip impacting a pony or horse warrior with a 1000lbs of charging horse behind it...

I'm not sure it was 'sturdy' enough to penetrate armour, or a shield, and do any damage - the idea was simply to 'stick into' the shield, such that it would be an encumberance and perhaps prompt the target to drop the shield. In any case the key point is that the pilum was far too short to be an effective 'pike' for use against cavalry. It was a throwing weapon. The Macedonian 'sarissa' for example was estimated to be as long as 22ft. The idea of a 'pike' weapon is that it is long enough for the pikes of the rearward ranks to reach forward past the front most rank. The pilum was so short that the second rank couldn't even reach far enough past the front rank to be effective. That, plus the lances of the 'knights' that they would be facing in this hypothetical scenario would outreach the front rank of Romans. If a Roman infantry force had been 'caught' in the open by a charge from such heavy cavalry, they would have been slaughtered and trying to use the pilum as pike would not have saved them.

zraver
03 May 07,, 18:54
1.) You are assuming that a single tumen would conquer Rome. In that regard I agree with you it can't. It would take the same amount of forces that conquered Song China and the Kwarazim Empire and taking into account that a big sea is in the smack middle of the empire.

2.) Say you have 100,000 troops guarding a 100 mile frontier. You have to disperse your forces in order to defend your strong points. You can't have them all at one time. That means that superior Mongolian mobility can fight and destroy smaller units in detail.

3.) Secondly, never underestimate the ability of superior mobility to frustrate the Roman commanders. If Scipio has his 20 legions in battle formation at A, why would Subutai attack him there when he can force him to defend B? A large enemy force like that travels in separate columns, which can be attack independently and wipe out with out the aid of the others.

4.) A roman Legion can march about 30 miles a day. A single tumen can travel 100 miles a day.

5.) The main problem with an infantry based army, no matter how well led or motivated, is that it cannot forced a well led cavalry army to a fight. It cannot dictate the terms of the battle. In simpliest terms, the Mongol Tumen can run away if it is in trouble, while a Roman Legion can't.

1- No, you said Sudedei with a single Tumen could beat any Roman army. If 10,000 isn't even enough to reduce a single well garrisoned magor population center your claim is false.

2- That was the strategy of the late Imperial times, if you back up a few hundred years to Romes Height then the borders are all but open and the roads and ports are the key allowing the legions who at this time were groups in the equivalent of corps to reach any point in the empire in record time.

3- infantry armies in the classical world did not divide, the Romans understood the value of mass.

4- Not qute true, horses even steppe ponies are not very durable. The longer a horse army is in the feild or the farther it is from its base the weaker its horse flesh. By the time the Mongols withdrew out of Poland and Hungary they were starving and out of horses and thier rate of travel was so adversly affected only some of those required to attend the Grand Kuraltai made it. And then the army left in Russia had to be compeltely rebuilt.

5- Again not tue, one has only to look at the American West to see how the US Infantry ran the Nez Perce and other horse tribes to ground. A man can outwalk a horse over the copurce of a week. Make that months and the horse is dead and as long as the man has food and boots he is still walking. No non-predatory creature on earth can outwalk a man in the long run.


They wouldn't have to sustain them for very long as they would simply create a local famine and keep moving. And of course fighting along the coast already implies the Mongols would have crushed field armies on the way.

Taking North Africa cuts off grain to Rome. If the Romans are hemmed inside of Italy then the richest parts of the empire are open to be sacked. A Mongol army feeding off local resources in grain growing provinces means a famine in the empire.

If a horse army doesn’t care for the local population at all then you will be surprised how much a province can feed a horse army. And then one had to factor in the refugee issue.

Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica might make nice final stands after the Mongols have conquered the mainland, but the Mongols did build a navy and reached (and briefly took with a small force) Java

How do you create a local famine inside an empire linked by roads and a professional bureacy? taking North Africa is a stretch even for the Mongols. It is not horse country, they are thousands of miles from suitable repalcements, the Romans can cross the med in days and keep the port cities suplied and the Mongols end up bottled up. ther eis not enough timber to build a feet to cross the straits of Gibraltar and if they tried to turn around they double the distance thier poor horses have to travel. While North Africa is called the bread basket of Rome, in truth it was the olive basket. Egypt, anatollia, Italy, Gual, and Spain all had signifigant cropland.

I don't agree with the refugee issue, people ithe anciwent world didn't leave their land this is one reason why thier are so many romanesque traits in so many different Euriopean countries today; the Romans never left.

And I am sorry, but the Mongols trying to swim ashore on Scicily or Corsica (asuming they defeat the Roman Navy) is a sitting duck to the legions who unlike the Samuari do not fight indivually and would have pushed them back into the sea.

Big K
04 May 07,, 13:54
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.

zraver
04 May 07,, 23:24
I'm not sure it was 'sturdy' enough to penetrate armour, or a shield, and do any damage - the idea was simply to 'stick into' the shield, such that it would be an encumberance and perhaps prompt the target to drop the shield. In any case the key point is that the pilum was far too short to be an effective 'pike' for use against cavalry. It was a throwing weapon. The Macedonian 'sarissa' for example was estimated to be as long as 22ft. The idea of a 'pike' weapon is that it is long enough for the pikes of the rearward ranks to reach forward past the front most rank. The pilum was so short that the second rank couldn't even reach far enough past the front rank to be effective. That, plus the lances of the 'knights' that they would be facing in this hypothetical scenario would outreach the front rank of Romans. If a Roman infantry force had been 'caught' in the open by a charge from such heavy cavalry, they would have been slaughtered and trying to use the pilum as pike would not have saved them.

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
04 May 07,, 23:56
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)

zraver
05 May 07,, 03:39
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
05 May 07,, 04:03
The pilum was effective vs cavalry, perhaps not as effective as Hoplite pikes or macadonian formations of the swiss but it was effective.

Well ‘effective vs cavalry’ is one thing, but you initially stated:

...The Pilum could also due duty as a pike ...

Clearly a short throwing spear with a bendable iron end was completely Ineffective as a ‘pike’.


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]

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


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.

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
05 May 07,, 07:47
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.

zraver
05 May 07,, 16:47
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.



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
07 May 07,, 13:48
exnavyamerican,

finally, it looks to me that the strongest argument against the mongols here would probably be the environment. mongols traditionally did well in wide-open spaces, where their horse cavalry and archers could easily beat the opposition. however, in wooded areas (where infantry is far better), they did not do very well at all...and infantry was rome's strength. i don't think it would have been a problem of bringing/building seige weapons, as the mongols did use seige weapons against baghdad IIRC.

The Mongols did, however, successfully march into Korea.

zraver
07 May 07,, 17:18
The Mongols did, however, successfully march into Korea.

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
08 May 07,, 13:56
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

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
28 May 07,, 19:14
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
28 May 07,, 19:25
^^^

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 (http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm)

TURKS

The Ottoman Sultans of Turkey & Successors in Romania (http://www.friesian.com/turkia.htm)

Rome

Rome and Romania, Roman Emperors, Byzantine Emperors, etc. (http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm)

Islam

Islam (http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#mamluk)

Moghul

Indian, Chinese, & Japanese Emperors (http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#moghuls)

india, japan and China

Indian, Chinese, & Japanese Emperors (http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#moghuls)

Alamgir
28 May 07,, 20:00
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
29 May 07,, 04:47
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
29 May 07,, 08:45
^^^

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 (http://www.friesian.com/mongol.htm)

TURKS

The Ottoman Sultans of Turkey & Successors in Romania (http://www.friesian.com/turkia.htm)

Rome

Rome and Romania, Roman Emperors, Byzantine Emperors, etc. (http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm)

Islam

Islam (http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#mamluk)

Moghul

Indian, Chinese, & Japanese Emperors (http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#moghuls)

india, japan and China

Indian, Chinese, & Japanese Emperors (http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#moghuls)



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

this is not a valuable source

deadkenny
29 May 07,, 13:40
Oh, well if that's YOUR opinion of it then I shall bookmark it and read it thoroughly when I have time. It must in fact be very accurate.

Big K
29 May 07,, 16:06
Oh, well if that's YOUR opinion of it then I shall bookmark it and read it thoroughly when I have time. It must in fact be very accurate.

hahahaha dont be so sure :)

xerxes
29 May 07,, 17:51
i didnt checked others but the Ottoman side of this site is very absurd and ridiculous.

this is not a valuable source

Being absurd and ridiculous does not equall false information ... for myself I trust the gentleman historian who probably devoted his life to build and write that mighty website

Big K
29 May 07,, 18:28
Being absurd and ridiculous does not equall false information ... for myself I trust the gentleman historian who probably devoted his life to build and write that mighty website


yes you have right, my mistake to choose wrong words.

but please take a look at his expressions about Ottomans. dont you feel an anger, a brutal and also incriminating way?

a historian have to be neutral in all contexts. he must separate hes feelings...

Kansas Bear
29 May 07,, 21:06
Being absurd and ridiculous does not equall false information ... for myself I trust the gentleman historian who probably devoted his life to build and write that mighty website


I believe this is the part he finds "absurd" and "ridiculous"....


now combines with lingering outrage over the genocide of the Armenians during World War I -- an event that Turkey still officially and stoutly denies, despite thorough historical documentation, not to mention many surviving eyewitnesses -- and more recent actions against the Kurds.


Excellent website though.:)

deadkenny
31 May 07,, 14:24
i didnt checked others but the Ottoman side of this site is very absurd and ridiculous.

this is not a valuable source

Also from this website on the Ottomans:

"In historical perspective, however, it is not clear to what extent the ancient peoples even still existed by the time of the Turkish arrival. Greek assimilation, i.e. Hellenization, of Anatolian peoples had been progressing steadily for centuries, and Turkish settlement in comparison doesn't necessarily look all that different. Given the religious cause that they thought they were vindicating (for which Islâm usually seems more excused than Christianity), the Fall of Constantinople, far from sad, was one of the supreme moments of achievement in the history of Islâm. A Western, or a modern liberal, evaluation will not give that much weight, but it is not hard to imagine that the sensation it created in Islâm was not much different from that in Christendom at the capture of Jerusalem by the First Crusade, or the completion of the Reconquista in Spain. These are similarly denigrated by modern opinion, but it is hard to imagine how the values at the time could have been different -- everyone should guard against an anachronistic indignation."

In fact, this site seems to be quite reasonable and even handed in dealing with the history of the Turks. However, you couldn't get past the part where it admits the truth of the extermination of the Armenians. So why should anyone bother to read all of the incredibly biased, one-sided, inaccurate posts and links that you keep asking us to read 'completely', when you can't even get past the first paragraph of a very accurate and even handed history web page simply because it admits the historical truth of the extermination of Armenians?

Big K
31 May 07,, 15:13
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)

i played and conquered the whole known world :)

i took the red fraction(couldnt remember the family name) only by chance...i achieved every missions that the senate comitted. but they still wanted the head of my fraction leader!!!

i tried to attack ROME but ROME himself and the other 2 fractions were too strong to handle. so i re-loaded from the time before my attack...and i didnt attacked...instead of this i sacrificed my leaders... :( ....otherwise Rome would attack on me....so silently i managed to build strongholds around the city of ROME. hehehehe :biggrin: when i decided that i gathered enough force to capture Rome i attacked at once and captured the city before other 2 fractions come their help...heheheh

the game sad that i captured Rome became the ultimate ruler :P

on the other hand i captured all of North Africa...Balkans, Anatolia, Europe, Middleeast, England, Germany, only the Siberia left...

when a city begun to rioting i bult up a arena... :) and they calmed down...isnt it ironic? :P

Big K
31 May 07,, 15:17
Also from this website on the Ottomans:

"In historical perspective, however, it is not clear to what extent the ancient peoples even still existed by the time of the Turkish arrival. Greek assimilation, i.e. Hellenization, of Anatolian peoples had been progressing steadily for centuries, and Turkish settlement in comparison doesn't necessarily look all that different. Given the religious cause that they thought they were vindicating (for which Islâm usually seems more excused than Christianity), the Fall of Constantinople, far from sad, was one of the supreme moments of achievement in the history of Islâm. A Western, or a modern liberal, evaluation will not give that much weight, but it is not hard to imagine that the sensation it created in Islâm was not much different from that in Christendom at the capture of Jerusalem by the First Crusade, or the completion of the Reconquista in Spain. These are similarly denigrated by modern opinion, but it is hard to imagine how the values at the time could have been different -- everyone should guard against an anachronistic indignation."

In fact, this site seems to be quite reasonable and even handed in dealing with the history of the Turks. However, you couldn't get past the part where it admits the truth of the extermination of the Armenians. So why should anyone bother to read all of the incredibly biased, one-sided, inaccurate posts and links that you keep asking us to read 'completely', when you can't even get past the first paragraph of a very accurate and even handed history web page simply because it admits the historical truth of the extermination of Armenians?


where do you know that i didnt read the whole Ottoman side? :) easy Kenny, i am gathering new information to contradict. but translating in English takes time especially for me... :(

Dynasty1
15 Aug 07,, 19:19
Mongols have the upper edge. Huns were cavalry archer nomads like Mongols and devastated Roman empire. But the fortunes of war need to be considered. In plains battle and siege warfare, Mongols were very experienced. Mongols would have devastated the Roman heavy cavalry by first fleeing to put Roman formation in disarray. Use their speed and archery to cut off Roman supply then annhilate the Roman army. But if Mongols fought Romans in close combat like Huns at Catalonian plains, where mobility and archery would be hindered, they would lose against Roman infantry and cavalry. But Mongols used gunpowder, so that might still give Mongols advantage in close combat also.

xerxes
27 Aug 07,, 00:12
I finished reading two books called: - I higly recommend both -

1) Spain road's to Empire: becoming of a global power

2) The Mongol Empire: Its Rise and Legacy by Michael Prawdin

The second book follows the same trend of Ottoman Centuries: a very nice overview of the empire's legacy. The book made it really clear to me that eventhough the Mongol invasions and indeed the Timur's invasion were among the worse in history, the legacy they left behind helped no less than FOUR civilizations to shape up and take control of their own destiny:

1) China which was united under Yuen after the fall of Sung and Kin

2) Persia being united under mongol yoke of Ilkhans and later Timur help to shape a new Persian national dynasty which the Arabs destroyed

3) India and the Mughul Empire, though I still have to investigate this further

4) Russia and the Grand Duchy of Moscovites and their inheritance from the Golden Horde


In many ways the Mongol era were like the Japanese aggression during and before World War II. They were savages and they showed no mercy but their legacy help to create something better: In case of Japanese, I can easilly say that shattering of the Europiean myth of invincibility over the Yellow men and the end of their imperialism in Asia was a good thing. It allowed far eastern nation to take control of their own destiny for good or for ill.

troung
06 Oct 07,, 20:09
But if Mongols fought Romans in close combat like Huns at Catalonian plains, where mobility and archery would be hindered, they would lose against Roman infantry and cavalry. But Mongols used gunpowder, so that might still give Mongols advantage in close combat also.

They took China which is pretty densely populated.


How do you create a local famine inside an empire linked by roads and a professional bureacy? taking North Africa is a stretch even for the Mongols. It is not horse country, they are thousands of miles from suitable repalcements, the Romans can cross the med in days and keep the port cities suplied and the Mongols end up bottled up. ther eis not enough timber to build a feet to cross the straits of Gibraltar and if they tried to turn around they double the distance thier poor horses have to travel. While North Africa is called the bread basket of Rome, in truth it was the olive basket. Egypt, anatollia, Italy, Gual, and Spain all had signifigant cropland.

Creating a local famine by seizing or destorying farm land and forcing refugees into cities. Anatolia and Egypt would be pretty easy marks for the Mongol army. And the Mongols as shown by their invasions were masters at finding local replacements. They raised Turkic, Georgian, Tajik, Uighur, Russian, Chinese, Jurchen, Khitan and Armenian Tumens. Georgia alone came to put up nine tumens.


I don't agree with the refugee issue, people ithe anciwent world didn't leave their land this is one reason why thier are so many romanesque traits in so many different Euriopean countries today; the Romans never left.

They would or die. Refugees did exist in warfare back then. During the Hunnic invasions there were refugees and lets not get into the Mongol invasions... plenty of refugees.

sealion
18 Oct 07,, 20:00
just one question,
if Ottoman (Ossoman) empire has nothing to do with Mongols , then ,what is Turk (Turuk) stands for , or , on the other hand , if Ottoman empire was made by Mongols (Osman) why is there any doubt if Mongols empire could win in combat the Roman empire , while Turuk races (Mongols)reached Spain? I guess the question is -how?- . Suggestion : maybe knowing the way of spreading in Asia could explain much.

troung
18 Oct 07,, 23:04
if Ottoman (Ossoman) empire has nothing to do with Mongols , then ,what is Turk (Turuk) stands for , or , on the other hand , if Ottoman empire was made by Mongols (Osman) why is there any doubt if Mongols empire could win in combat the Roman empire ,

Osman was a Turk not a Mongol (or even a Turko-Mongol). They had historical connections with the Seljuks of Rum and not the Mongols. Osman took advantage of the chaos of the Mongol invasions but was not a Mongol.


while Turuk races (Mongols)reached Spain? I guess the question is -how?- . Suggestion : maybe knowing the way of spreading in Asia could explain much.

The Moors/Arabs weren't/aren't Turks.

sealion
20 Oct 07,, 10:47
I m sorry Troung . I m just saying what i read about Turks history (written by Jean Paul Roux - Paris University- manager of C.N.R.S. and member of institute of Turkish studies , other books: la religion des Turks et des Mongols(Payot 1984) 2. Babur histoire des grands Mongols(Fayard 1986) 3. histoire de l' empire ottoman(Fayard 1986)

sealion
20 Oct 07,, 10:56
(Joke - memories) what croissants with chocolate stands for (see Austria's history)

antiochos
22 Dec 07,, 23:26
Hello from Hellas

Inst
23 Dec 07,, 15:04
No, the Yuan (Yuen in Wade Giles) Dynasty was a Mongol-ruled dynasty. It was anti-Chinese in its ideology and barred many worthy Chinese from the ruling class.

The Song dynasty the Mongols destroyed, had, at the time, the world's highest iron output, was grossly innovative, and had an advanced proto-capitalism.

One of the things is, the longer Chinese history lasts, the worse China becomes. It has an unparalleled history of environmental degredation; at the start of Chinese history, the lands that would become modern China had a biodiversity approaching that of the Amazon, but by the start of the Christian-era, rhinoceros armor became impossible, as the rhinoceros became extinct, and the treasure fleets of the Ming dynasty could not be replicated in the Qing, as the lumber resources involved had already been depleted.

glyn
23 Dec 07,, 15:49
One of the things is, the longer Chinese history lasts, the worse China becomes. It has an unparalleled history of environmental degredation; at the start of Chinese history, the lands that would become modern China had a biodiversity approaching that of the Amazon, but by the start of the Christian-era, rhinoceros armor became impossible, as the rhinoceros became extinct, and the treasure fleets of the Ming dynasty could not be replicated in the Qing, as the lumber resources involved had already been depleted.

Most interesting.:) There are clearly lessons to be drawn from the study of Chinese history and possibly applied to todays global problems.

joken gonzo
24 Dec 07,, 00:07
wow the fast moving and wild mongol horde vs the hard discplined roman legionaires to me it comes down to a battle of wits who is the better tactian and who can utlize their advantages better

qqpasswang
02 Jan 08,, 15:44
Mongol Empire!
IF Genghiskhan was still living,Mongol would win !

sealion
12 Jan 08,, 22:07
this page http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/EMPIRE17.swf is a good way to understand many things

beansprout
03 Feb 08,, 09:44
Ofcourse mongols la....
Look what happened to the romans in Carrhae....

chankya
08 Feb 08,, 23:33
i played and conquered the whole known world :)

i took the red fraction(couldnt remember the family name) only by chance...i achieved every missions that the senate comitted. but they still wanted the head of my fraction leader!!!

i tried to attack ROME but ROME himself and the other 2 fractions were too strong to handle. so i re-loaded from the time before my attack...and i didnt attacked...instead of this i sacrificed my leaders... :( ....otherwise Rome would attack on me....so silently i managed to build strongholds around the city of ROME. hehehehe :biggrin: when i decided that i gathered enough force to capture Rome i attacked at once and captured the city before other 2 fractions come their help...heheheh

the game sad that i captured Rome became the ultimate ruler :P

on the other hand i captured all of North Africa...Balkans, Anatolia, Europe, Middleeast, England, Germany, only the Siberia left...

when a city begun to rioting i bult up a arena... :) and they calmed down...isnt it ironic? :P

That would be the Julii then. It's a very interesting game. They have a lot of strange units(flaming pigs as a regular army formation! ) but for the most part it's accurate. Not so much in what damage each unit can do as much as what movement and maneuvers in an ancient army must cost the commander. Besides its just awesome to see a roman army scale walls.

I usually play as the green faction(Brutii). This lets you conquer Greece and Egypt which gives you a lot of money.

I'm playing Sudden strike : resource war now. The only thing i find odd is that for a resource war there is no concept of units being cut of from supply lines. Isolated supply units in some corner of the map can keep regenerating ammo/construction equipment and petrol. :) On the other hand it is just a game.

You should try barbarian invasion which is an add on for rome total war. You can fight night battles. It's fun.

retaxis
12 Mar 08,, 10:26
wow the fast moving and wild mongol horde vs the hard discplined roman legionaires to me it comes down to a battle of wits who is the better tactian and who can utlize their advantages better

Wild? they were the most disciplined and orderly and brave people in the world at that time. Mongolian's are put into squads of ten. If one member of a squad takes a wrong foot, the whole squad is killed maintaining absolute discipline.

Mongolians when they were young practiced to shoot animals in the eyes from across large rivers. They have more horse riding, training then any other cavalry in the world and their arrows cut through thick metal armour like a chainsaw through cream. Mongols only had true difficulty against the Asians in terms of wars. Europeans were just scraps of meat. Iranian/russia/east europe fell in few few years but it took mongols nearly 100years to defeat china. And even when they did capture song, the ruler was so pro chinese he moved the mongol capital to china and made chinese the official language. Mongolians also sufferered hundreds of thousands of casualties against Japan. More then a quarter of a million men lost against korea. They never managed to capture vietnam after hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers. Mongols were powerful and effective but mainly only against european metal hunks and scarf wearing middle easterners.

Officer of Engineers
12 Mar 08,, 13:39
Wild? they were the most disciplined and orderly and brave people in the world at that time. Mongolian's are put into squads of ten. If one member of a squad takes a wrong foot, the whole squad is killed maintaining absolute discipline.Usually, the group takes care of itself long before this happens.


Mongolians when they were young practiced to shoot animals in the eyes from across large rivers. They have more horse riding, training then any other cavalry in the world and their Oh come on, enough of the propaganda!

Kansas Bear
12 Mar 08,, 15:14
Wild? they were the most disciplined and orderly and brave people in the world at that time. Mongolian's are put into squads of ten. If one member of a squad takes a wrong foot, the whole squad is killed maintaining absolute discipline.

Mongolians when they were young practiced to shoot animals in the eyes from across large rivers. They have more horse riding, training then any other cavalry in the world and their arrows cut through thick metal armour like a chainsaw through cream. Mongols only had true difficulty against the Asians in terms of wars. Europeans were just scraps of meat. Iranian/russia/east europe fell in few few years but it took mongols nearly 100years to defeat china. And even when they did capture song, the ruler was so pro chinese he moved the mongol capital to china and made chinese the official language. Mongolians also sufferered hundreds of thousands of casualties against Japan. More then a quarter of a million men lost against korea. They never managed to capture vietnam after hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers. Mongols were powerful and effective but mainly only against european metal hunks and scarf wearing middle easterners.


'Ayn Jalut (September 8, 1260)

troung
12 Mar 08,, 18:48
Mongols only had true difficulty against the Asians in terms of wars.Mongols were powerful and effective but mainly only against european metal hunks and scarf wearing middle easterners.

They conquered the Song, Jin and Korea. They probably killed more people in the far East then in Europe during the invasion period.


Mongolians when they were young practiced to shoot animals in the eyes from across large rivers. They have more horse riding, training then any other cavalry in the world and their arrows cut through thick metal armour like a chainsaw through cream

Pretty much the same as the Kipchaks or any other Turkic group, Khitans, Jurchens or other horse peoples. Which is why those people fit in so easily to the Mongol structure (which was a refining of the systems of organization of past steppe tribal confederations).

And their arrow shooting was hardly super human.

lwarmonger
13 Mar 08,, 00:10
However their organization was exceptional. My vote is for the Mongols, because militarily their ability to perform on the battlefield (the combination of discipline and control) was pretty much unmatched. However they were incapable of constructing a lasting empire because their society was a loosely clan based structure that occasionally came together around one man.

Rome would have been smashed on the battlefield, however within a man's lifetime whatever the Mongols had erected in Rome's place would crumble.

troung
13 Mar 08,, 00:44
However their organization was exceptional. My vote is for the Mongols, because militarily their ability to perform on the battlefield (the combination of discipline and control) was pretty much unmatched.

Just pointed that out to make the point that the rise of the Mongols was part of a larger story of steppe nomads.


However they were incapable of constructing a lasting empire because their society was a loosely clan based structure that occasionally came together around one man.Rome would have been smashed on the battlefield, however within a man's lifetime whatever the Mongols had erected in Rome's place would crumble.

The Golden Horde (Mongol state in Russia) lasted almost three hundred years - its successor states lasted even longer (under the rule of descendants of Jochi the first son of Genghis Khan). The Khanate of Crimea fell only in 1771.

retaxis
13 Mar 08,, 15:07
'Ayn Jalut (September 8, 1260)

Shall i quote you on the hundreds of battles the mongols won against superior opponents?

That battle had the Mongols out numbered, fighting in enemy territory and fighting against a bunch of bandit mongols. By then the Mongol empire was already split into four smaller nations. Compare the mongols under subudei with the legions under julius caesar and the Mongols would still win even if they are outnumbered 10:1.

Mongols have the advantage of speed which allows them to pester the enemy, destroy their food supply, scare the enemy and force them not to sleep or just running away at will. Their small horses were particularly designed for stamina, endurance and speed. Plus they would have used Chinese siege weapons and explosives on the metal hunks.

retaxis
13 Mar 08,, 15:16
They conquered the Song, Jin and Korea. They probably killed more people in the far East then in Europe during the invasion period.
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




Pretty much the same as the Kipchaks or any other Turkic group, Khitans, Jurchens or other horse peoples. Which is why those people fit in so easily to the Mongol structure (which was a refining of the systems of organization of past steppe tribal confederations).

And their arrow shooting was hardly super human.

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
13 Mar 08,, 15:45
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.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.

troung
13 Mar 08,, 17:07
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? noOther eastern nations? Indonesia? phillipines? malaysia? no

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.


Compare the mongols under subudei with the legions under julius caesar and the Mongols would still win even if they are outnumbered 10:1.

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.

================

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.

Mohi.

Blademaster
13 Mar 08,, 17:33
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.

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
13 Mar 08,, 17:43
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.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
13 Mar 08,, 18:09
Shall i quote you on the hundreds of battles the mongols won against superior opponents?

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
14 Mar 08,, 02:17
The Golden Horde (Mongol state in Russia) lasted almost three hundred years - its successor states lasted even longer (under the rule of descendants of Jochi the first son of Genghis Khan). The Khanate of Crimea fell only in 1771.

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
14 Mar 08,, 02:22
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.

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
14 Mar 08,, 03:54
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
14 Mar 08,, 06:18
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?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
14 Mar 08,, 12:19
Mongols would win easily.

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

aaron82
14 Mar 08,, 12:23
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!

hi can you explain?

troung
14 Mar 08,, 19:19
However those were rump states.

Those were still powerful states.


he 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).

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.


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. 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.

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 Timerids acquired quite a few Persian characteristics and then collapsed to the Turkic and Persian peoples within,

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
15 Mar 08,, 03:30
Those were still powerful states.

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



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.

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).



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.

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.



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.

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?



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.

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
15 Mar 08,, 05:41
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.

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.

Officer of Engineers
15 Mar 08,, 05:42
Winter

Blademaster
15 Mar 08,, 06:03
Winter

Right, because the cold and the snow preserved the food. Plus the communities have planned for winter because of the vast generational knowledge of farming and hoarding for the winter. Now tell me what happens during the summer when the farmers are tilling the fields and there's a bunch of raiders coming over the field and killing the farmers. Now guess what? No farmers, no tilling, no harvest, no stores, and there you have it. Starvation.

Officer of Engineers
15 Mar 08,, 08:08
The other part of this is that Mongol horses need forage and winter ain't the time for this. In other words, sooner or later in the year, the Mongols have to leave and thus lifting their own siege. In other words, winter is when they were the weakest while Roman armies are used to winter campaigns.

Blademaster
15 Mar 08,, 15:38
The other part of this is that Mongol horses need forage and winter ain't the time for this. In other words, sooner or later in the year, the Mongols have to leave and thus lifting their own siege. In other words, winter is when they were the weakest while Roman armies are used to winter campaigns.

So were the Poles and the Teutonic Knights but they got their asses handed to them despite the winter advantage. The same goes for the Slavs.

Officer of Engineers
15 Mar 08,, 15:51
So were the Poles and the Teutonic Knights but they got their asses handed to them despite the winter advantage.If you're talking about Mohi, you will note that the Poles were disorganized and fell right into Mongol trap.


The same goes for the Slavs.Russians? If you read the history, they were paying tribute after some losses during summer campaigns.

zraver
15 Mar 08,, 16:50
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.

The problem for the Mongols is that Rome divided its population from its food. The horsemen could do devastating damage in the interior of Europe until they are the countryside bear, they could even sack Rome itself but along the coast would not be able to effect a seige of the big coastal cities who could ship in troops and supplies from across the empire.

lwarmonger
15 Mar 08,, 18:39
The problem for the Mongols is that Rome divided its population from its food. The horsemen could do devastating damage in the interior of Europe until they are the countryside bear, they could even sack Rome itself but along the coast would not be able to effect a seige of the big coastal cities who could ship in troops and supplies from across the empire.

Assuming that Rome wasn't split by civil war (or worse multi-cornered civil war) after a defeat or two. Given Rome's history, I'd say that would be the way to bet. They were always a worse enemy to themselves than outsiders ever were.

troung
15 Mar 08,, 20:22
If you're talking about Mohi, you will note that the Poles were disorganized and fell right into Mongol trap.

Mohi was the Hungarians. And there the Mongols used siege equipment to bombard Hungarian positions and besiege their camp.


The problem for the Mongols is that Rome divided its population from its food. The horsemen could do devastating damage in the interior of Europe until they are the countryside bear, they could even sack Rome itself but along the coast would not be able to effect a seige of the big coastal cities who could ship in troops and supplies from across the empire.

At that point Rome would simply do what other settled states did, pay protection money and enter into unequal treaties.


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.

The ones who would have shown up with them. And nomads were not the only groups that joined their service - lots of Chinese, Uighurs, Tajiks, Armenians and Georgians.


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).

The guys that ran it were descendant from GK.


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.

The Timurid internal problems were the same as many states settled or nomadic - Timur was the state and knew the magic formula to keeping everything together.

It happens.


The other part of this is that Mongol horses need forage and winter ain't the time for this. In other words, sooner or later in the year, the Mongols have to leave and thus lifting their own siege. In other words, winter is when they were the weakest while Roman armies are used to winter campaigns.

Their horses can graze in the winter, it ain't pretty but it is a lot better then peasants dislocated from the fighting over the summer who have access to even less food and are a threat inside some city to the city leaders.

Winter was actually a good raiding season, made crossing rivers easier and made other people less likely to be ready. Not the preferred season but nomads would campaign then.


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?

The unified Mongol empire was more or less 5ish states. During the civil war the states went their own way or were absorbed into others. So judging the duration of Mongol states by the unified whole doesn't paint the whole picture, as the states were very large (and empires in their own right).

Gettoit
02 Apr 08,, 16:13
Look @ Roman accomplisment architecture,engineering enduring civil structures that to this day are still in use by the masses of present day. The horse warriors were roaming raiders plundering and as a ripple in time ... smooth as the plains they came from.Gone and little to no trace of their being,show me a statue,an aqueduct,a road,a building, I say they were compost,temporary soil ammendments that were swallowed up my the ground they pounded w/ their horses hoofs.

Officer of Engineers
02 Apr 08,, 17:35
show me a statue,an aqueduct,a road,a building,The map of modern day China.

Gettoit
02 Apr 08,, 22:06
My post was aimed more @ the Hun and not the Chinese. I recognize the ancient culture of the chinese,their engineering feats,their contributions to humanity. Im new to this media and will scrutinize topic matter more closely. :rolleyes:

troung
02 Apr 08,, 22:39
The Qing dynasty was founded by the Manchus who created the modern borders of China from 1644. It was they who took East Turkestan and Mongolia into "China".

As for making stuff outside of "only" the Yuan and Qing who set up shop in China - Uzbekistan (itself named after a tribal confederation who took power) is full of monuments set up by Steppe empires, and the Taj Mahal in India was set up by the Mughals (a Turko-Mongol conquest state). Then one has modern day Turkey, created by Turks who set up shop and created a powerful state.

Officer of Engineers
03 Apr 08,, 04:53
Sorry, Troung,

A bit of family prejudice here. The Soong (aka the Cantonese) was conquered under Kublai. Were it not for that conquest, China might as well have been two nations.

troung
03 Apr 08,, 05:28
So I just used because of the semi-continuity to today. The Yuan works fine for the point :)

As for two nations, the north during the Mongol invasions had a Jurchen/Khitan military elite but a majority Han population, outside of their historical heartlands and all then. Without the Manchu conquest, China might not have passed the great wall and barring Russia could have been a lot of countries - Manchuria, Mongolia, East Turkestan, Tibet and Han China. Just some idle speculation on my part with nothing special cited.

Regardless your point shoots down the steppe people never had any lasting impact comment.

Gettoit
03 Apr 08,, 15:34
Im not the authority on Chinese history by any means or Hun or Mongol ... I can see that I need to go to a place here that Im much stronger knowlege wise.Napoleon :tongue:

troung
03 Apr 08,, 18:28
So why did you comment?

cdude
04 Apr 08,, 00:19
Sorry, Troung,

A bit of family prejudice here. The Soong (aka the Cantonese) was conquered under Kublai. Were it not for that conquest, China might as well have been two nations.

When the Mongols rose in the north, the Song (Soong) Dynasty was already defeated by the Jin from Manchuria, and the Song only controlled the southern part of China, we call it the South Song, in contrast to the North Song before the Jin invasion.

So, the Song is not quite just the Cantonese ( people from Canton province which is the south most province in China proper), but also other southerners.

I don;t know what would happen if the Mongols didn't conquer the Song. We northerners always like to go south and beat up the southerners. Sooner or later, if it's not the Mongols, the Manchus would do it anyways. Weather north of the Great Wall is just too rough!

Officer of Engineers
04 Apr 08,, 00:27
I don;t know what would happen if the Mongols didn't conquer the Song. We northerners always like to go south and beat up the southerners. Sooner or later, if it's not the Mongols, the Manchus would do it anyways. Weather north of the Great Wall is just too rough!

It might have been the other way around with the Soong marching north though I doubt it. The Soong were on the edge of another technological leap. They were perfecting the canon to the point that it could be mass produced. There were advances in personal firearms though I doubt those would have the same impact since archers on horseback were far more lethal and the firearms of the period were notoriously inaccurate.

cdude
04 Apr 08,, 00:37
I, too, doubt the Soong would march north even if they had the best canon around the time. This is maybe a little bit regionalism, but Northerners are bigger, stronger, more violent, we might not have the brain power to write classical poems, but we sure know how to fight, even to this day. People in China Proper were totally spoiled by the good weather, they could not handle the hash climate out of the Great Wall.

Historically, no southern Chinese dynasty won a single "unification" war against the northerners. It's always the northerners going down and conquer the China Proper. I was once sitting in a talk by a history professor. He told us the phenomenon is so true that even the communists, they first occupied Manchuria, then going from there and won the Civil War.



It might have been the other way around with the Soong marching north though I doubt it. The Soong were on the edge of another technological leap. They were perfecting the canon to the point that it could be mass produced. There were advances in personal firearms though I doubt those would have the same impact since archers on horseback were far more lethal and the firearms of the period were notoriously inaccurate.

Officer of Engineers
04 Apr 08,, 00:55
Or you could be under the Russian boot. Do recall the only way the Qin took the Ming was through treachery and then went on to use Chinese firepower to stop the Russians.

No, my point about the Soong canon was that they would've become the dominant military power in the region. Whether that translate into marching north is another question but it does mean that they would've been invulnerable against northern aggression, at least until the military technology balanced out and I'm not sure how that would be achieved. From Europe perhaps?

But then, that would be the Russians.

troung
04 Apr 08,, 02:42
No, my point about the Soong canon was that they would've become the dominant military power in the region. Whether that translate into marching north is another question but it does mean that they would've been invulnerable against northern aggression, at least until the military technology balanced out and I'm not sure how that would be achieved. From Europe perhaps?

Trade (legal or otherwise) or capturing weapons or smiths. The Qing captured Chinese cannon makers to create their own artillery park.


Or you could be under the Russian boot. Do recall the only way the Qin took the Ming was through treachery and then went on to use Chinese firepower to stop the Russians.

But they used steppe style mobility to take East Turkestan and Mongolia.

Officer of Engineers
04 Apr 08,, 03:27
Trade (legal or otherwise) or capturing weapons or smiths. The Qing captured Chinese cannon makers to create their own artillery park.Didn't think of that.


But they used steppe style mobility to take East Turkestan and Mongolia.Would they have done so without taking the Ming? That was a lot of money to raise their armies.

troung
04 Apr 08,, 04:01
Would they have done so without taking the Ming? That was a lot of money to raise their armies.

They got most of the Mongols without having Ming resources. They marched in with eight Mongol banners and with all but one of the Manchu eight banners having a couple of Mongol companies attached. So they would have had a lot of Mongols regardless, keeping them would have been an issue.

The Zunghar campaign would have had to have been done with or without those resources as the Zunghars threatened Qing held Mongolia. The campaigns were heavily aided by Chinese resources so they would have been fought different - but still they had to be fought. The Qing fought in the steppe style (modified with matchlocks and cannons on both sides but both sides still used horse archers) with settled resources behind them against steppe people, like Kubalia vs. Qaidu/Duwa or Arik Boke.

One thing I will speculate is that while the Qing made use of Chinese resources to march west, the Soong/Ming weren't going to march west.


Didn't think of that.

A hypothetical nomadic state facing a cannon armed Soong would end up getting them somehow, and then using them which might just make things worse as it would make taking cities easier then throwing rocks at the walls. They could just end up making their doom easier by having cannons around.

Could have a 1453 Byzantine thing where a gunsmith sets up shop with the enemy who will pay him on time. You could be one of many poorly paid Soong gunsmiths or the very well paid Mongol gunsmith. Or just get forced into the trade.

========================

troung
04 Apr 08,, 08:35
Speculating... having a little fun with a further what if

A non-Qing conquest of Southern China - say a southern Ming or a Wu state or what ever - gives the bizarre parallel during the Zunghar conflict, of Manchus ruling northern China, Han ruling the south and Mongols (Zunghars) outside coming southish. Factor in Russia to the equation playing off everyone. So bizarre alliances, arms deals to destabilize, raids and all types of fun.

I have read some sources which put a sort of tension during the Zunghar conflicts as the Manchus (Jurchens) remembered the fate of the Jin.

Gettoit
04 Apr 08,, 14:57
Im done here ... this isnt fun anymore..:))

ashishonline1
08 Sep 08,, 11:05
I think mongols were far superior than the Romans and the mongols would win the battle .... at their peak the mongols were said to have a mordern army ,a 20th century army fighting in the 12th century who were unbeaten till around half a century before others came up with a plan to create a counter plan ,Ain Jalut was their first serious defeat .... it was because they had a much smaller force who were up against a bigger force trained specially to fight in the mongol way and Mameluks were allied with Berke Khan who played a major role in pulling away and defeating Hulagu Khan ....
Romans would struggle against a fast mobilised army using pincer movement tactics attacking them from different directions at the same time .... considering the way mongols planned each campaign which included sending spies to study enemy strengths , weaknesses , ability to attack together or separately ,leadership qualities , their own ability and preparadness to handle different situations and tactical superiority (feigned retreat tactics) it would require a very well disciplined army to beat them which the Romans were but since the mongols had the advantage of speed and better lines of communication ,they would always be controlling the fate of the battle ...... romans best chance would be to lure the mongols in such a situation where their speed could be negated and the terrain suited their infantry divisions .... that is if they would force the mongols to fight on foot rather than on their horses ..... but against an army led by Genghis Khan or Subedei it would take some planning to catch them on the wrong foot . They say part of the reason why Subedei was so successful was because he never fought a war until he was sure that he would win so I think even the great Julius Ceaser would have to come out with a master plan to beat them ....

Triple C
08 Sep 08,, 13:00
Haven't we gone through this before? The Roman army was the best infantry force the world had ever produced before and until the 20th century not exceeded by anyone. A clash between the best of horse and foot does not readily show a predetermined outcome to me.



Romans would struggle against a fast mobilised army using pincer movement tactics attacking them from different directions at the same time


Proof?



considering the way mongols planned each campaign which included sending spies to study enemy strengths , weaknesses , ability to attack together or separately ,leadership qualities , their own ability and preparadness to handle different situations and tactical superiority (feigned retreat tactics)


None of which, I should add, are new to the Romans. Their war against the Samnites and Carthage were multiple-theater wars. I do not think imperial Roman military power would be weaker than their Republican predecessors.



it would require a very well disciplined army to beat them which the Romans were but since the mongols had the advantage of speed and better lines of communication ,they would always be controlling the fate of the battle


Long term operational mobility, as pointed out by OoE and Sir John Keegan in A History of Warfare, favors the foot army, as it is less dependent on fragile horses and fodder. Horses do not endure long campaigns well. The British lost thousands of horses per month in the Rhodesian Wars.

The Mongol horses must move through wilderness and at the long run more dependent on the logistic tail then the foot army. The Romans had a dense road-net and an extensive record in strategic campaigns. So the Mongol superiority at maneuver was tactical, not operational.



romans best chance would be to lure the mongols in such a situation where their speed could be negated and the terrain suited their infantry divisions .... that is if they would force the mongols to fight on foot rather than on their horses ..... but against an army led by Genghis Khan or Subedei it would take some planning to catch them on the wrong foot


Simple. The Mongols, when forced into siege battles, suffered as many casaulties comparable to other pre-gunpowder armies. As the Romans had the ability to cordinate multiple field armies and siege technology to match the Chinese, the implications are clear.



I think even the great Julius Ceaser would have to come out with a master plan to beat them


The Julian and Augustian Wars were continental and in some cases crossed the Mediterean into the Middle East. That showed both flair, vision and professional competence.

snapper
08 Sep 08,, 15:39
How long did the Roman Empire last? Some say the American Empire today is the distant relative of Roman Empire. Where are the Mongols?

Some would and have argued that the Mongols left their mark of modern day Russia and if Western countries are the 'heirs of Rome' then Russia is equaly the 'heir of the Mongols and Byzantines'.

ashishonline1
08 Sep 08,, 16:55
well first of all we have to note both the armies are more than a thousand years apart and I could ask you to do the same proving thing as far as to say the Romans had the best infantry till 20th century ..... that is probably because they never faced the mongols and as for proof you could take the example of this quote from the Byzantine-Sassanid Wars "The Romans employed the best infantry at the time; heavily armed and armoured soldiers plus numerous auxiliaries. By the 4th century A.D., armor was less often used and by the 5th century Germanic mercenaries were employed. The Romans continued to use heavy infantry of the legionary type but these were ineffective against the mobile Persian horse archers. From the 3rd century heavy cataphract cavalry wearing full horse and rider armour became an increasingly important component of Roman armies." my point is that a strong cavalry including horse archers always has an advantage as they are moving targets and are difficult to pin down but a heavily armoured soldier will be a much easier target ....
As far as siege warfare goes you have to be more specific on the scenario on which anyways long term implications would be suffered by the Romans only as they are city dwelling people and depend on cultivation , the mongols being nomads did not depend upon these liabilities ,they could live off the land so in many cases of long sieges they would simply sit tight , feed on the reinforcements , cut off water supply lines and force enemies into making desperate attacks

Triple C
08 Sep 08,, 18:04
well first of all we have to note both the armies are more than a thousand years apart and I could ask you to do the same proving thing as far as to say the Romans had the best infantry till 20th century .....

I am rather certain that the army that set the standard for marching on foot with a rack definately over 50 lbs a very fit and disciplined army. Can you give me an example of other infantry armies, including those of the Napoleonic Era, that entrench themselves as doctrine every night while in hostile territory, with or without fighting? At its peak, it is a volunteer army that drilled everyday and every soldier served for 25 years?


that is probably because they never faced the mongols and as for proof you could take the example of this quote from the Byzantine-Sassanid Wars "The Romans employed the best infantry at the time; heavily armed and armoured soldiers plus numerous auxiliaries.

Did you read my post? My example was Julian and Augustian Imperial Legions during the reign of the good emperors.


By the 4th century A.D., armor was less often used and by the 5th century Germanic mercenaries were employed. The Romans continued to use heavy infantry of the legionary type but these were ineffective against the mobile Persian horse archers. From the 3rd century heavy cataphract cavalry wearing full horse and rider armour became an increasingly important component of Roman armies." my point is that a strong cavalry including horse archers always has an advantage as they are moving targets and are difficult to pin down but a heavily armoured soldier will be a much easier target ....

You are refering to the enervated post-Diocletian 3d AD Legions. Those were inferior to the early imperial troops in every respect concievable. Because they were paid less, trained less, given inferior equipment, were not organized as combined arms formations, and was expected to farm for their own food. Rather pathetic, and calling them the best infantry force at the world during this period is a rather backhanded compliment to the infantry arm at this period. The real Roman Legions were pretty successful in holding their own against the Parthians whose equipment and tactics were identical to that of the Sassanids, and stayed on the offensive. And yes, I can read wikipedia.



As far as siege warfare goes you have to be more specific on the scenario on which anyways long term implications would be suffered by the Romans only as they are city dwelling people and depend on cultivation , the mongols being nomads did not depend upon these liabilities ,they could live off the land so in many cases of long sieges they would simply sit tight , feed on the reinforcements , cut off water supply lines and force enemies into making desperate attacks

My scenario includes ALL Mongol sieges against prepared defense. 'Living off the land' is an euphemism of getting into a starving contest with your beleaguered adversary. It might be a shock to you, but besieging armies have always suffered terribly from plauges, want of rations, and constant missiles from the walls and towers. This is the reason why traditionally massive numerical superiority must be marshalled for an offensive and why the Mongols preferred to destroy their enemy on the field then getting into a drawn-out siege.

Once a city is invested, the Mongols were obliged to starve out or batter their way through the defenses like everyone else and suffered accordingly. Genghis Khan ordered decimation of his own army by cannibalism during a siege and this report of cannibalism (http://books.google.com.tw/books?id=enCz-n1bHxoC&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=Genghis+Khan+cannibalism+siege&source=web&ots=flEMnoa_mR&sig=WBFjL92xeNiF8QQcw0N2WKXpWCQ&hl=zh-TW&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA114,M1) is collaborated by the Peter the archbishop of Russia, Rashid al-Din and Jurchid sources. If you follow the link, you will read an account in which Khan, in a rather uncharacteristicly buffoonish moment, begged his enemy to grant him rations and safe passage so that his armies could retreat to Mongolia's summer quarters. His wish was granted. Something tells me the Romans would not have been so accomodating.

Finally, what makes you think that the Roman Legionaire was a soft city dweller? They marched as fast as any World War I army, dug in every night, and bourne all of their own kit and gear. All that, and on their feet to boot.

Triple C
08 Sep 08,, 18:24
Oh! And I should also add, while Mongol barbarism might gave them a couple of extra meals, there is a twenty-five per cent chance that the eaters would be afflicted by pongiform encephalopathy, the human form of the mad cow disease, which is God's polite way of saying thou shalt not consume thine kind.

ashishonline1
10 Sep 08,, 19:04
[QUOTE=Triple C;542564]I am rather certain that the army that set the standard for marching on foot with a rack definately over 50 lbs a very fit and disciplined army. Can you give me an example of other infantry armies, including those of the Napoleonic Era, that entrench themselves as doctrine every night while in hostile territory, with or without fighting? At its peak, it is a volunteer army that drilled everyday and every soldier served for 25 years?

during the campaign against Jin in the autumn of 1216 the horseborne Mongols covered 13 kilometres a day ,cross-country, fighting four major battles and in constant danger of further attack for two full months forcing the Jin to sue for peace ....... well both the armies were hugely succesful because they had brave skilled fighters and they were disciplined in executing their manoevurs so you cant say man to man either had non professional warriors


Did you read my post? My example was Julian and Augustian Imperial Legions during the reign of the good emperors.

yes all great empires had great leaders and they became great because they were better than the rest so whats your point ?

anyways I cant understand how a classical army using ancient methods could defeat an army like that of the mongols who fought in a modern way ..... this was a time when the Japanese samurais and European knights fought with honour and valour , they made emphasis on this things , the mongols on the other hand used all means necessary to defeat an enemy.... during the great raid of Europe the Mongols galloped 7500 kms undefeated before even being stopped ....

what I m trying to say is that they fought much like modern armies .... blitzkrieg , psychological warfare, biological , shock and awe tactics were used by them at a time when european armies fought with set-piece engagements backed by castles and ramparts ,the only thing they had an advantage was in numbers so even if the Romans had the finest infantry it does not mean they were invincible and they fought in much classical ancient way that in their days was effective and succesful....

also the mongols using their tactics hardly lost a major battle during the reign of Genghis .... it took a while for others to catch up..... Romans were the greatest empire buliders of their time,its just that its in different eras and style of warfare... even the british empire was great during the peak of their powers but that does not mean that they could possibly defeat the Americans in this era......

xerxes
10 Sep 08,, 21:28
Some would and have argued that the Mongols left their mark of modern day Russia and if Western countries are the 'heirs of Rome' then Russia is equaly the 'heir of the Mongols and Byzantines'.

Yes, and more than that Snapper,

The Mongoles unified China - Sung and Han - under one ruler, the resulting NEW unifed China was inherited by the Ming, Qing and is enjoyed today by PRC.

To a lesser degree, the Mongoles unified Persia, by closing the Abbassid royal bloodline and the Assassins for good. Prior to that Iran was always formally under Arab yoke, eventhough in reallity Persian influence was strong within the shadow caliphate. The Abbassid caliphate followed the Sassanid tradition, in the sameway Omayyed in Syria followed the tradition of the Byzantines. The Mongol invasion removed that charade.

In India, Timur's descendent formed the Mogul Empire. You can ask the Indian members here if in their opinion it was for good or ill.

Russia is their strongest contribution as you have mentioned. There is a book that I read that goes from Jenghiz days, covers Timurid, up all the way to 19th Century Russia and China. It explains the origin and the evolution of the Imperial courts in Moscow/St.Petersburg and Beijing, and the strong influence of the Mongols on these two powers in modern history. Mongols left more marks on the Chinese and Russian, then today Chinese and Russian like to admit.

At the end of the day Mongols lost, but their wars of conquest shook the foundation of human civilization everywhere they touched: extincting some nations, and unifiying/lumping others into one.

zraver
10 Sep 08,, 21:58
anyways I cant understand how a classical army using ancient methods could defeat an army like that of the mongols who fought in a modern way ..... this was a time when the Japanese samurais and European knights fought with honour and valour , they made emphasis on this things , the mongols on the other hand used all means necessary to defeat an enemy.... during the great raid of Europe the Mongols galloped 7500 kms undefeated before even being stopped ....

The mongols tasted defeat. The great weakness of the Mongol Empire was its nomadic roots. Once it civilised it grew soft on the spoils. Within or almost within living memory of Sudetai the Mongols were tasting defeat by the group that would become the Mamluks who had adapted while the Mongols grew soft. Rome throughout the mid republican to the height of its imperial power did not grow soft. Plus Rome had numbers. There were never more than 250,000 mongol men. At times Rome had more than this under arms. Finally the Mongols lacked the strategic mobility to take on Rome around the med. As fast as the mongols were, the ships were faster. Had the Mongols tried to penetrate very deep they would have found fortified cities linked by ship and road allowing nearly unlimited resupply from the estates in Spain, Egypt and North Africa.

troung
11 Sep 08,, 01:19
The mongols tasted defeat. The great weakness of the Mongol Empire was its nomadic roots. Once it civilised it grew soft on the spoils. Within or almost within living memory of Sudetai the Mongols were tasting defeat by the group that would become the Mamluks who had adapted while the Mongols grew soft. Rome throughout the mid republican to the height of its imperial power did not grow soft. Plus Rome had numbers. There were never more than 250,000 mongol men. At times Rome had more than this under arms. Finally the Mongols lacked the strategic mobility to take on Rome around the med. As fast as the mongols were, the ships were faster. Had the Mongols tried to penetrate very deep they would have found fortified cities linked by ship and road allowing nearly unlimited resupply from the estates in Spain, Egypt and North Africa.

I can't really blame someone for the Mamluk thing, but the Ilkhanate did an amazing job once one realizes not only did they have to maintain order, but they fought two other Mongol states (Chagataids and Golden Horde) who were actually their real top enemies not the Mamluks, far from a soft state - the lack of a male heir to Abu Said did them in. In fact the one real time they were free to deal with the Mamlukes, in 1299 under Ghazan, they kicked them out of Syria, and things went back to the status quo of course once the usual issues popped up with other Mongol states.

As for the size of the Mongol army, it was actually huge when one thinks about it. How many powers waged war at the same time across Eurasia with armies into the hundreds of thousands, back then. Hint they were invading the Song at the same time as the Middle East, then there were over 100k-150k soldiers in Russia along with troops under Chagataids in Central Asia and other units in Mongolia all at once. In the 14th century, Uzbek Khan could put over 200k men (some put it upwards of 300k) into the field; steppe tribal confederations were actual able to field large armies.

The Khanate of Crimea was still deadly into the 18th century, Temur whipped ass across Russia/Central Asia/India/Middle East, the Uzbeks whipped ass in the 16th century, and the Mughals took India. Esen Khan gave the Ming a solid ass whipping in the Temu crisis. The Manchus formed 8 Mongol banners which fought along with putting Mongol companies into Manchu banners. Kalmyks whipped ass. Then one has the Zunghars, five centuries later. Last state led by an heir to GK fell; in 1920.

As for water, well there is a lot of water in China. Didn't really prevent them from doing that.

Triple C
11 Sep 08,, 07:18
[QUOTE=]
during the campaign against Jin in the autumn of 1216 the horseborne Mongols covered 13 kilometres a day ,cross-country, fighting four major battles and in constant danger of further attack for two full months forcing the Jin to sue for peace .......


20 miles aday was the standard pace not forced march.






[QUOTE=]Did you read my post? My example was Julian and Augustian Imperial Legions during the reign of the good emperors.

yes all great empires had great leaders and they became great because they were better than the rest so whats your point ?


No. Are you at all familiar with the history of the Roman Legion? Training standards and organization change over time.



what I m trying to say is that they fought much like modern armies .... blitzkrieg , psychological warfare, biological , shock and awe tactics were used by them at a time when european armies fought with set-piece engagements backed by castles and ramparts ,


This is pure bunk.

All armies of the pre-modern age including the Mongols are restricted by the same requirements: mobility by muscle power, the availability of food and fodder, and the dominance of the fortified defender over the attacker. Did you bother to read my posts when the great Khan begged his enemy to let him withdrawl to Mongol's summer quarters because his troops were decimated in positional warfare against Jurchin walls? That they were forced to cannibalized their own for food during sieges? Evidently not.

Do you have any idea how the Romans fought? Are you at all familiar with the basic chronology of history? The Romans were not contemporary at all to the Samurai or European Knights. Roman tactics were throughly scientific and result-focused. As for the use of terror, nothing the Mongols did were in anyway disparate to Roman practices.




the only thing they had an advantage was in numbers so even if the Romans had the finest infantry it does not mean they were invincible and they fought in much classical ancient way that in their days was effective and succesful....


Classical ancient way? :confused: What the hell are you talking about? The Romans fought the same way anyone had ever fought: to the best of their discipline and training allowed. Do you know how sophisticated Roman drill was, and how capable they were at making subtle, synchronized maneuvers by small units in a big battle?



also the mongols using their tactics hardly lost a major battle during the reign of Genghis .... it took a while for others to catch up..... Romans were the greatest empire buliders of their time,its just that its in different eras and style of warfare... even the british empire was great during the peak of their powers but that does not mean that they could possibly defeat the Americans in this era......

Genghis was also fortunate that at the time of his rise to power he was surrounded by corpulent & complacent empires.

zraver
11 Sep 08,, 15:38
[QUOTE=ashishonline1;543523][QUOTE=Triple C;542564]




20 miles aday was the standard pace not forced march.

Speed is limited by the wagons after all. Where supply trains were not a factor such as internal roads inside an Empire the infantry can move faster than horses over the long run.


No. Are you at all familiar with the history of the Roman Legion? Training standards and organization change over time.



This is pure bunk.

All armies of the pre-modern age including the Mongols are restricted by the same requirements: mobility by muscle power, the availability of food and fodder, and the dominance of the fortified defender over the attacker. Did you bother to read my posts when the great Khan begged his enemy to let him withdrawl to Mongol's summer quarters because his troops were decimated in positional warfare against Jurchin walls? That they were forced to cannibalized their own for food during sieges? Evidently not.

Do you have any idea how the Romans fought? Are you at all familiar with the basic chronology of history? The Romans were not contemporary at all to the Samurai or European Knights. Roman tactics were throughly scientific and result-focused. As for the use of terror, nothing the Mongols did were in anyway disparate to Roman practices.

I don't think he knows much about Rome. After all he eqautes internal rivers in China with an internal sea the Romans had.


Classical ancient way? :confused: What the hell are you talking about? The Romans fought the same way anyone had ever fought: to the best of their discipline and training allowed. Do you know how sophisticated Roman drill was, and how capable they were at making subtle, synchronized maneuvers by small units in a big battle?

He obviously isn't.




Genghis was also fortunate that at the time of his rise to power he was surrounded by corpulent & complacent empires.

He also had the dogs of war. Rome never really had the many greats at one time unified under a single commander. Give Julius command and the loyalty of Ptolemy, Antony, and Octavian and you have an equal command structure.

ashishonline1
11 Sep 08,, 16:41
[QUOTE=ashishonline1;543523][QUOTE=Triple C;542564]

first of all hi again ...... u dnt have to be sarcastic all the time and I m not making personal comments on u or questioning ur knowledge of history ok and when a person is talking to u, atleast try and be nice ok, we are talking about dead people here , its not that u r a roman and I m a mongol k so dont be like I Mr know all and grow up [/[/I]I][/COLOR]

20 miles aday was the standard pace not forced march.





No. Are you at all familiar with the history of the Roman Legion? Training standards and organization change over time.

well I have knowledge of roman history and I m not saying I knw everything ..... its like were u dere when they were training or what , ur knowledge is bookish and practically things are a lot diff on the field and yes please familarize me with ur great knowledge of history of the Roman Legion...


This is pure bunk.

All armies of the pre-modern age including the Mongols are restricted by the same requirements: mobility by muscle power, the availability of food and fodder, and the dominance of the fortified defender over the attacker. Did you bother to read my posts when the great Khan begged his enemy to let him withdrawl to Mongol's summer quarters because his troops were decimated in positional warfare against Jurchin walls? That they were forced to cannibalized their own for food during sieges? Evidently not.

well he begged his way to conquer an empire twice the size of Rome .... maybe if the romans had begged then their empire would have been doubled

Do you have any idea how the Romans fought? Are you at all familiar with the basic chronology of history? The Romans were not contemporary at all to the Samurai or European Knights. Roman tactics were throughly scientific and result-focused. As for the use of terror, nothing the Mongols did were in anyway disparate to Roman practices.

well I never said samurais or european knights were contemporary to romans , I was comparing them with the mongols in their era because a fair way to compare two armies is how they faired against major powers of their era....... even u were making comments that even Napolean didnt have a better infantry than romans and I didnt assume both of them were frm same era and asked u "Are you at all familiar with the basic chronology of history? "
For a knowledgable man/woman do u lack common sense ?



Classical ancient way? :confused: What the hell are you talking about? The Romans fought the same way anyone had ever fought: to the best of their discipline and training allowed. Do you know how sophisticated Roman drill was, and how capable they were at making subtle, synchronized maneuvers by small units in a big battle?

so are you trying to say that the Romans were even better than medieval European armies , boy Europe must have gone on a backward spiral and yes enlighten me on roman drills and tactics... u r welcome to do so instead of bragging yourself.... it would be great to know what u knw so let me as well know


Genghis was also fortunate that at the time of his rise to power he was surrounded by corpulent & complacent empires.


That does not mean power was given to him on a platter by his corpulent & complacent neighbours ..... Genghis started as a pauper and yet he faced adversitys and overcame them and yes he was fortunate as well ........ after all fortune favours the brave ..... do u think it was an easy task to unite volatile tribes switching alliances by the dozen .... he raised an army that would eventually china , central asia , eastern europe .... how fortunate was he to defeat some of the greatest civilization of his time right ? he must have felt so lucky !!!

Triple C
11 Sep 08,, 17:00
Yes, yes. But let us address the real issues shall we?



anyways I cant understand how a classical army using ancient methods could defeat an army like that of the mongols who fought in a modern way ..... this was a time when the Japanese samurais and European knights fought with honour and valour , they made emphasis on this things , the mongols on the other hand used all means necessary to defeat an enemy.... during the great raid of Europe the Mongols galloped 7500 kms undefeated before even being stopped ....

what I m trying to say is that they fought much like modern armies .... blitzkrieg , psychological warfare, biological , shock and awe tactics were used by them at a time when european armies fought with set-piece engagements backed by castles and ramparts ,the only thing they had an advantage was in numbers so even if the Romans had the finest infantry it does not mean they were invincible and they fought in much classical ancient way that in their days was effective and succesful....


Would you like to clarify to me what are you trying to say? Because try as I might, I don't.

ashishonline1
12 Sep 08,, 16:46
The mongols tasted defeat. The great weakness of the Mongol Empire was its nomadic roots. Once it civilised it grew soft on the spoils. Within or almost within living memory of Sudetai the Mongols were tasting defeat by the group that would become the Mamluks who had adapted while the Mongols grew soft. Rome throughout the mid republican to the height of its imperial power did not grow soft. Plus Rome had numbers. There were never more than 250,000 mongol men. At times Rome had more than this under arms. Finally the Mongols lacked the strategic mobility to take on Rome around the med. As fast as the mongols were, the ships were faster. Had the Mongols tried to penetrate very deep they would have found fortified cities linked by ship and road allowing nearly unlimited resupply from the estates in Spain, Egypt and North Africa.

you are right when you say that the Mongols eventually adapted to the culture of the nations they conquered ..... being nomadic was not a weakness though ,infact their military organization and tactics system was a direct extension of the nomadic lifestyle of the Mongols . The Mongol armies constantly practiced horsemanship, archery, and unit tactics, formations and rotations. This training was maintained by a hard regimen and discipline .
their strength was cavalry but they had mastered the art of siege warfare after their conquests in China so the armies of Genghis that invaded central asia was a combination of superb cavalry + chinese siege tehnology

soft is not a word to describe the mongols , they were ruthless ..... before every battle they would give an offer to surrender , if the enemies resisted they were massacared in numbers after the fall of the city .... for a mongol soldier killing of prisoners was no more important than killing cattles , being nomads they felt farmers were of no use except for a source of future resistance ..... Genghis Khan and his succesors did their best to wipe out people country and culture from the face of the earth ... such a fate happened to tanguts whos existence was wiped out by them and none of the tanguts survived to record their existence (why they were so cruel no one knows?? or why they took sadistic pleasure?)

Subedei was not defeated by Mamluks , he was defeated by the Volga Bulgars but u have to rem that it was only a reconniasance mission (The Great Raid )with round bout 2 tumens (20000) , the mongols would return back to avenge this defeat and conquer as far as Hungary and poland
numbers were never a factor with the mongols infact most of the armies they faced outnumbered them yet their success rate was high....

Finally the Mongols lacked the strategic mobility to take on Rome around the med. As fast as the mongols were, the ships were faster. Had the Mongols tried to penetrate very deep they would have found fortified cities linked by ship and road allowing nearly unlimited resupply from the estates in Spain, Egypt and North Africa.[/QUOTE]

so not true the Mongols at their peak under Subedei were always well coordinated behind enemy lines by their pony express covering 600 kms a day and in constant touch with Genghis's headquarters...... (an example)they defeated the poles at Liegnitz while their second army defeated the hungarians next day .... both armies knew exactly the other was....
fortified cities were there in China as well which were as well designed as any of their time yet the mongols took china who had a pretty standard maritime ships as well ....

Akaloc
23 Sep 08,, 13:28
Who would win?

I say the Mongols would win easily because Romans are no match for the quick cavalry of the mongols. The slow-moving and heavily armored Roman soldiers would be destroyed by the Mongols.

The Mongols were known to use gunpowder, and grenades and their methods of seige warfare would equal if not surpass the Romans.

The Romans would be clearly overwhelmed.

True and all, but its not really a fair question. They were centuries, a millennial to be more exact apart in history. Mongols were clearly superior technologically as well as in tactics, they had a thousand years of hindsight and development. Its like asking who is better, the British Empire at its peak or Mongol Empire at its peak. Clearly the British would have won, better tech and strategy. Same goes for Mongols vs Romans, imo.

Triple C
23 Sep 08,, 15:07
True and all, but its not really a fair question. They were centuries, a millennial to be more exact apart in history. Mongols were clearly superior technologically as well as in tactics, they had a thousand years of hindsight and development.

Better generalship compared to other nomads yes. Technology and drill? Questionable. There is no indication that composite bow experienced a technological leap, nor their breed of horses.

zraver
23 Sep 08,, 16:23
Better generalship compared to other nomads yes. Technology and drill? Questionable. There is no indication that composite bow experienced a technological leap, nor their breed of horses.

I agree Roman foot drill at the hieght of Imperial power was at least as good as Mongol horse drill during the reign of the great Khan.

As far as horses and technology goes, the stirrup was a huge leap. Mongol lancers and horse archers could deliver more imapct energy or impart more bow energy and accuracy from the simple fact of having solid footing. But this advantage would not have alster more than a year as Rome was very good at copying new technology as we see with the Hispania glaidus and cavalry's spatha.

astralis
23 Sep 08,, 16:28
zraver,


But this advantage would not have alster more than a year as Rome was very good at copying new technology as we see with the Hispania glaidus and cavalry's spatha.

it'd take longer- romans weren't good cavalrymen to begin with, and it would take a long time to train a good horseman, especially horse archer. very hard to beat steppe nomads at something they're born doing.

Triple C
23 Sep 08,, 17:08
I did miss the stirrup. That literally made an immense impact for cavalry deployed in a shock role. Otherwise, composite bows, tactics and horses seemed to have been constants. I don't think it can be emphasized enough that the Mongols had Ghengis Khan on their side.

astralis
23 Sep 08,, 17:50
speaking of the stirrup,

now that brings up another fun ahistorical comparison, norman knights vs the roman legion. :biggrin:

zraver
23 Sep 08,, 20:53
zraver,



it'd take longer- romans weren't good cavalrymen to begin with, and it would take a long time to train a good horseman, especially horse archer. very hard to beat steppe nomads at something they're born doing.

The Romans might not have been, but the tribal allies were. Plus we are not talking introduction of the horse and stirrup just the stirrup so there was a core of both Roman and allied horse to build on.

speaking of the stirrup,


now that brings up another fun ahistorical comparison, norman knights vs the roman legion.

Are we talking historical armies transplanted to face each other? I don't know of any dark age army that had the size to take on a typical multi-legion Roman army. The knights would probably crush the first rank with the lance, and then get swarmed under and boxed in, in a manner similar to what Alexander did to the Persian chariots. The Norman longsword and ax are not going to be effective vs a glaidus armed swarm of legionaries.

astralis
23 Sep 08,, 21:07
zraver,


Are we talking historical armies transplanted to face each other? I don't know of any dark age army that had the size to take on a typical multi-legion Roman army. The knights would probably crush the first rank with the lance, and then get swarmed under and boxed in, in a manner similar to what Alexander did to the Persian chariots. The Norman longsword and ax are not going to be effective vs a glaidus armed swarm of legionaries.

i suppose as one moves up in the medieval times, the number would increase.

wonder if the gladius could penetrate medieval armor; stab attacks had been replaced by blunt attacks by the middle ages.

zraver
23 Sep 08,, 21:19
zraver,



i suppose as one moves up in the medieval times, the number would increase.

wonder if the gladius could penetrate medieval armor; stab attacks had been replaced by blunt attacks by the middle ages.

But not because stab attacks had become ineffective hence the lance and spear, but because the style of war had changed to shield wall with what amounted to full body kite shields y small groups of professional warriors or mounted combat. Massed armies of highly trained infantry had simple become to expensive in western Europe.

Plus the Gladius was designed as a stabbing weapon unlike the later dark age weapons that had a much broader point that made stabbing less effective.

Triple C
24 Sep 08,, 04:25
Germanic/Gaullic honor guards seem have been good enough heavy cavalry, Sarmatians were reputed to be good. Norman knights would have questionable battering power versus a Roman Legion. At the Battle of Hastings the Normans charged the Anglo-Saxon line ten times before breaking it, mainly due to the fact that a significant contingent of the Huskarls broke rank to attack the retreating knights, who were either withdrawing from an unsuccessful attack or baiting the Anglo-Saxons to give chase. Their leader was killed by an arrow sometime prior to this event, too.


But not because stab attacks had become ineffective hence the lance and spear, but because the style of war had changed to shield wall with what amounted to full body kite shields y small groups of professional warriors or mounted combat. Massed armies of highly trained infantry had simple become to expensive in western Europe.

Plus the Gladius was designed as a stabbing weapon unlike the later dark age weapons that had a much broader point that made stabbing less effective.

Gladius would have been highly effective against anything 11th century Norman troopers had. The infantry would be lucky to wear a mail coat. But if we are talking about men-at-arms of the 14th century or later, stabbing weapons would not have made a dent.

Angeldark
24 Sep 08,, 16:38
True and all, but its not really a fair question. They were centuries, a millennial to be more exact apart in history. Mongols were clearly superior technologically as well as in tactics, they had a thousand years of hindsight and development. Its like asking who is better, the British Empire at its peak or Mongol Empire at its peak. Clearly the British would have won, better tech and strategy. Same goes for Mongols vs Romans, imo.

I agree with you , a millenia is a long time plus mongols had a huge advantage of speed .... the sheer pace of attack would be overwhelming for the slower Romans (assuming its not a siege warfare) ...... history records they didnt have a good record against cavalry based armies , the war against Parthians at the Battle of Carrhae is an example.....

zraver
24 Sep 08,, 18:12
Triple C, I was stickign to the posed question legions vs Normans. By the late middle ages technology like steel and a resurgence in military thinking and increasing use of infantry and missiles would ahve been a far different story.


I agree with you , a millenia is a long time plus mongols had a huge advantage of speed .... the sheer pace of attack would be overwhelming for the slower Romans (assuming its not a siege warfare) ......

I assume you are talking tactical mobility, a horse being faster than a man over the short run. However the Roman army does have a couple of advantages vs the typical Mongol style. As a foot army pursuit is less of an issue so the army is lessl likely to break up. As Roman Legions discipline is also working against the army splitting up. A surronded Roman army can always simply dig in. This means the Mongols will have to at some point charge and either break the legions, or break themselves. A seige even a shot one begins to threaten the food supplies of the horses who wil break down faster than starvign men.



history records they didnt have a good record against cavalry based armies , the war against Parthians at the Battle of Carrhae is an example.....

Carrhae is often cited, but is not the best example. Rome/Byzantium sacked the Persian capitol 3 times and pushed the borders of the Empire all the way to present day Basra after the battle of Carrhae. Likewise the Huns did great vs the Late Roman system but still tasted defeat. Right up to its collpase the Roman Legion remained a very potent force vs any enemy.

Officer of Engineers
24 Sep 08,, 22:35
This means the Mongols will have to at some point charge and either break the legions, or break themselves. A seige even a shot one begins to threaten the food supplies of the horses who wil break down faster than starvign men.Z,

While the Mongols prefer to fight on horseback, they are not without infantry skills. Their sacks of cities were done on foot, not horseback. While horses will starve, the men will not. They eat their own horses without a 2nd thought. At 7 horses per rider, that is a hell of a lot of meat.

zraver
25 Sep 08,, 00:00
Z,

While the Mongols prefer to fight on horseback, they are not without infantry skills. Their sacks of cities were done on foot, not horseback. While horses will starve, the men will not. They eat their own horses without a 2nd thought. At 7 horses per rider, that is a hell of a lot of meat.

Once they are on foot, the Legions are the superior force as long as they are not totally starved out. The late republican/early imperial Romans are as good on foot as the Mongols are on horseback.

Officer of Engineers
25 Sep 08,, 01:23
Once they are on foot, the Legions are the superior force as long as they are not totally starved out. The late republican/early imperial Romans are as good on foot as the Mongols are on horseback.Z,

That is an assumption. Do recall that the Mongols made use of auxillaries as much as the Romans did. In this case, Soong engineers and Jiang infantry should be part of the equation.

And if technology is to be part of it, do recall that Soong canoneers were the 1st on the planet.