Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mongol Empire vs. Roman Empire

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    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.

    Comment


    • #32
      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.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by SRB
        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.

        Originally posted by SRB
        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.
        Originally posted by SRB
        there is something that Monogols are left behind each tenth citiezen of Europe have Monogol blood
        And we all know why that happened.
        "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

        Comment


        • #34
          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.

          Comment


          • #35
            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.

            Comment


            • #36
              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?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by kNikS
                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.

                Comment


                • #38
                  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.
                  "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    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.
                    "The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by kNikS
                      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.
                      Last edited by IDonT; 13 Jun 06,, 20:44.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I completely agree.
                        "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          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.
                          To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by gunnut
                            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.
                            "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by IDonT
                              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.

                              Originally posted by IDonT
                              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."

                              Originally posted by IDonT
                              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.

                              Originally posted by IDonT
                              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.

                              Originally posted by IDonT
                              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".
                              Last edited by kNikS; 14 Jun 06,, 13:52.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                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.
                                "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X