Mongol Empire vs. Roman Empire

[sparten]

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.

[Blademaster]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.