Mongol Empire vs. Roman Empire

[antiochos]

Hello from Hellas

[Inst]

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]

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]

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]

Mongol Empire!
IF Genghiskhan was still living,Mongol would win !

[sealion]

this page http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/EMPIRE17.swf is a good way to understand many things

[beansprout]

Ofcourse mongols la....
Look what happened to the romans in Carrhae....

[chankya]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

'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.