View Poll Results: Who would be victorious?

Voters
181. You may not vote on this poll
  • Mongol Empire

    104 57.46%
  • Roman Empire

    77 42.54%
Page 49 of 49 FirstFirst ... 40414243444546474849
Results 721 to 732 of 732

Thread: Mongol Empire vs. Roman Empire

  1. #721
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,172
    Z,most of these points have already been debated. Valid nevertheless.

    Any invasion of Anatolia faces an additional problem.Same as that of Persians when they met Heraclius.They were trying to find ways to cross the straits.Meanwhile the Romans were ravaging their bases ,coming via Black Sea.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  2. #722
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    Z,most of these points have already been debated. Valid nevertheless.

    Any invasion of Anatolia faces an additional problem.Same as that of Persians when they met Heraclius.They were trying to find ways to cross the straits.Meanwhile the Romans were ravaging their bases ,coming via Black Sea.
    Just re-introducing them for the new comers who seem fixated on the percieved Mongolina tactical advnatages and numbers.

    Those numbers are a problem as well. 300,000 warriors means 2.1 million horses or 1500 tons of dry fodder/ 3000 tons of wet fodder a day. Figure 4/8 tons per acre of fodder can be harvested thats 375 acres a day 11250 acresa month in fodder. If the army stops moving the horses starve.

  3. #723
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,658
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Just re-introducing them for the new comers who seem fixated on the percieved Mongolina tactical advnatages and numbers.

    Those numbers are a problem as well. 300,000 warriors means 2.1 million horses or 1500 tons of dry fodder/ 3000 tons of wet fodder a day. Figure 4/8 tons per acre of fodder can be harvested thats 375 acres a day 11250 acresa month in fodder. If the army stops moving the horses starve.
    And reintroducing the counter to that point - the Mongol host that threatened Europe didn't stay "clumped together" in a single host but rather split up into three separate armies that advanced independantly accross a broad front. So you potentially have three armies each of 100,000 sourcing fodder and supplies from different locales. Still not easy but doable in the short/medium term. This also gives te Romans a second problem - prioritising their responce (which army to they try to intercept/defeat first.)
    Last edited by Monash; 27 Nov 11, at 00:33.

  4. #724
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    And reintroducing the counter to that point - the Mongol host that threatened Europe didn't stay "clumped together" in a single host but rather split up into three separate armies that advanced independantly accross a broad front. So you potentially have three armies each of 100,000 sourcing fodder and supplies from different locales. Still not easy but doable in the short/medium term. This also gives te Romans a second problem - prioritising their responce (which army to they try to intercept/defeat first.)
    I would say it lets the Romans decide who they want to defeat first. The nature of the Roman empire means the Mongol armies if split won't be mutually supporting. Diving into threes against three foes is one thing. Divinding into threes against an empire with superb interior lines, that is heavily catsilated and has a population for 40-60 million is another thing entirely.

  5. #725
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    8,131
    Historically the weakest area will be an advance across the northern shore of the Black Sea and then an advance through Dacia, Moesia and Thrace which open sup Greece (Macedonia, Epirus, and Achaea) and a possible advance into Itlaia and Gaul. But again this leaves the Levant, Asia Minor, Hispania, Egypt North Africa and the Insland provinces (Scicily, Creta, Cyprus, Rhodes, Corsica and Sardinia) alone. The fact that Rome was for the most part a coastal empire is a huge problem for the Mongols.
    In the real history the Mongols attacked Europe, while pushing into the Middle East and continuing into China each with armies larger then the ones the Romans dealt with for the most part. An offensive through Dacia doesn't preclude an offensive at the same time into Anatolia and the Levant. And a set back doesn't prevent them from coming back again and again for decades if necessary.

    Since when decisive victory is needed? The Mongols came back in the 1270's.They did nothing of consequence.
    A successor state, without the resources of the unified Mongol Empire.

    ===============
    Other than that don't mind me and go back to hazing that new guy...
    Last edited by troung; 27 Nov 11, at 02:58.
    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

  6. #726
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    In the real history the Mongols attacked Europe, while pushing into the Middle East and continuing into China each with armies larger then the ones the Romans dealt with for the most part.
    But not out of Rome's ability to adapt too. During the civil war between Octavian and Antony the two sides had 380,000 men or so under arms on land and another 150-200,000 at sea.

    An offensive through Dacia doesn't preclude an offensive at the same time into Anatolia and the Levant. And a set back doesn't prevent them from coming back again and again for decades if necessary.


    A successor state, without the resources of the unified Mongol Empire.

    ===============
    Other than that don't mind me and go back to hazing that new guy...
    And the Mongols never faced a unified state with the reach, wealth and power of Rome. For the most part they took China fighting successor states...

  7. #727
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    8,131
    And the Mongols never faced a unified state with the reach, wealth and power of Rome. For the most part they took China fighting successor states...
    The Song was not a joke, they just got made to look so badly. Had it been the Song facing Vandals, Dacians, Gauls, and Celts, they would have looked like a prime Mike Tyson. Instead they got the Khitan, Jurchen, Tanguts, and Mongols. The Song and Jurchens weren't on their last legs when the Mongols showed up, they hadn't gone effete in fact both fought on.

    But not out of Rome's ability to adapt too. During the civil war between Octavian and Antony the two sides had 380,000 men or so under arms on land and another 150-200,000 at sea.
    With prime farm land being destroyed year in and year out, unaffected provinces looking after themselves, roads clogged with refugees, and dislocated peasants flooding the cities, the Roman state wouldn't be sitting pretty.
    Last edited by troung; 27 Nov 11, at 06:04.
    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

  8. #728
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,172
    You're underestimating Dacians,Gauls and the rest.Historically speaking,no nomad managed more than than a grab a bit of loot or pass by the bulk of the population/army in this corner of the woods.And we're talking of either statelets or the medieval ones,which compare poorly with the Dacians.Heck,we've beaten the Romans themselves a couple of times.The fundamental problem remains.Too big of an army starves,a too litle one may be able to steal a few cattles but not more.
    All ancient ''barbarians'' could thrive in the woods.That they preffered agriculture doesn't mean they couldn't hunt or have their herds send into the sanctuaries.They will outlast the fodder available to the horses,because the population/space ratio was good enough.
    You argue the Mongols will come year after year and burn everything.They might.But that also makes them predictible.The whole force of 300000-1000000 doesn't go on raids and even if does,raiding means spreading.Either the defenders will suffer local defeats or they will start to win local victories.Even if they are beaten,that's the kind of defeats that lead to adaptation,meaning the next time they can win.Lots of small victories over the horde means over the time a balance is reached.Which is what the Mongols in our scenario don't want.
    Part of these can apply to our Augustan Rome scenario,but they're valid for the northern barbarians/medievals mostly.

    You seem to think a cavalry horde is the ultimate war machine.It can be,on its own ground.It can be where it has space and fodder.Well led and in favourable terrain it could even defeat a combined arms force.There is however a reason Europe went towards a infantry/combined arms approach.Is not we can't ride horses as the Scythians between Altai and the Black Sea are proof enough.Just that the METT is different.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  9. #729
    Senior Contributor 1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Jul 09
    Location
    Rom‚nia
    Posts
    1,700
    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    And reintroducing the counter to that point - the Mongol host that threatened Europe didn't stay "clumped together" in a single host but rather split up into three separate armies that advanced independantly accross a broad front. So you potentially have three armies each of 100,000 sourcing fodder and supplies from different locales. Still not easy but doable in the short/medium term. This also gives te Romans a second problem - prioritising their responce (which army to they try to intercept/defeat first.)
    It does not matter, they would not seek to destroy the strongest of the three but the weakest .
    J'ai en marre.

  10. #730
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Quote Originally Posted by 1979 View Post
    It does not matter, they would not seek to destroy the strongest of the three but the weakest .
    And Rome didn't count strongest or weakest by numbers but by vulnerability.

  11. #731
    Regular Wonderful Plans's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 20
    Posts
    105
    I say the Mongols would win but how long would they hold power? The Mongols were highly mobile and could replenish their armies in a hurry. Since the Greeks/Romans were more or less a concentrated ruling class in a diverse society they would find difficulty keeping a loyal resistance against the tireless Mongols for more than a generation or two and would eventually surrender and pay tribute to the Khans.
    Hit the grape lethally.

  12. #732
    Regular Wonderful Plans's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 20
    Posts
    105
    Then you should consider that the Mongols would need passage through several other countries to get to the Greeks and that would complicate things. I also checked the height of each empire and the height of the Mongols was the 13th and 14th centuries and the Romans were at their height in the 2nd century A.D. So, the Mongols would have the dark age feudal Europe to deal with by the time they were strong enough to conquer that deep.
    Last edited by Wonderful Plans; 29 Feb 20, at 15:34.
    Hit the grape lethally.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Geographic Catalysts for Secularization in Western Europe
    By Ironduke in forum The Staff College
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 07 May 07,, 08:57
  2. The Greatest Empire
    By scotsboyuk in forum Ancient, Medieval & Early Modern Ages
    Replies: 188
    Last Post: 07 Feb 07,, 21:16
  3. The Fall Of Rome?
    By Ironside in forum Ancient, Medieval & Early Modern Ages
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 26 May 06,, 02:47
  4. Destroying Baghdad
    By sparten in forum Warfare in the Modern Age
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 20 Feb 06,, 21:22
  5. Are our Soldiers incompetent?
    By giggs88 in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 29 Dec 05,, 04:31

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •