Thread: Mongol Empire vs. Roman Empire

Originally Posted by Monash

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.

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...

Originally Posted by troung

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...

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Monash

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 .

Originally Posted by 1979

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.