Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mongol Empire vs. Roman Empire

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

  • Originally posted by zraver View Post
    A horn and sinew bow can require up to a year of curing before its ready to use. Plus the collection of materials like thousands of fish swim bladders for glue and other components. I think its reasonable to think a bow cost at least as much as a good sword.
    Yes I know it takes a while to make but a good sword requires good quality steel metalwork was/is very expensive in this time period. A Mongol warrier could make 2 or 3 bows at a time using cheap locally available materials - all he needs then is the time.
    If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by zraver View Post
      Based on the information provided by 79, the Romans have 3360 archers in the Levant and 480 allied horse archers. We don't know the time of that though.
      Judging by the names, 2 were raised by Augustus ( one of them had 10 centuria) , one by Vespasian, 2 by Trajan, the other 2 probably after Ascalon (Judea) and Damascus (Syria) became part of the roman empire.
      The horse archers by Antoninus Pius.

      Overall Augustus seams to have raised 5 archers cohorts, 13 cavalry (1 horse archers), 11 infantry (some of them with a cavalry component).

      EDIT: some of the existing auxiliary units were probably formed also by Augustus , but without solid evidence, there is no way to be sure which.
      Last edited by 1979; 12 Jan 11,, 18:21.
      J'ai en marre.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Monash View Post
        but would it then punch through a set of Lorica Segmenta or chain mail (depending on the period/unit) and go deep enough to cause serious injury/death to the wearer with any reliability? And at what range?
        One advantage the roman infantry has over the medieval european armies is the size of the shield , it covered the area from the knees to the eye level.
        Another thing to consider, is the fact that it was held half a arms length from the body armor. A missile projectile has to penetrate 3 areas of different density to reach the torso suffering increased deceleration as it goes.
        Without going into the math, (weight of the arrow, initial speed, deceleration, arrow tip area and density) needed to penetrate the shield,space between the shield and lorica and ultimately the lorica ( although I did some empirical calculations) I'm going with point blank range.
        Debilitating damage to shins and arms could be done outside the pilum effective range as far as i can tell.

        Btw if you want a 75 % archers army , it's fine with me. :)
        Last edited by 1979; 12 Jan 11,, 10:50.
        J'ai en marre.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mihais View Post

          WRT archery,Roman force protection is vastly superior to the Mongols.Not only most Mongol horses are unarmoured,but they are stacked either to deep-allowing greater concentration of firepower AND a huge target or they are they are to thin,which reduces their effectiveness.Roman foot archers win the attrition battle anyway.The sole condition is that missile troops(archers&slingers) make at least 20-25% of the Mongol force.
          I suggested falling back to Sinai and wait for reinforcements. Do you disagree ?
          J'ai en marre.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 1979 View Post
            I suggested falling back to Sinai and wait for reinforcements. Do you disagree ?
            When I thought through this scenario my first thought was a withdrawal to the Levant - specifically the port cities on that coast. Firstly this allows for reinforcements to arrive as quickly as possible (and boy are the Romans going to need them). Secondly it creates problems for the Mongols, they can choose to bypass the Romans and head north towards Anatolia or south towards Egypt but either choice means leaving large Roman formations at their rear. The Romans also have the option of leaving strong garrisons in at least some major inland cities in the hope that the Mongols can be at least be partly delayed/hurt taking them - maybe the Mongols would oblige, maybe they would simply bypass any strong points along their lines of advance. But this requires a careful balancing act, leave too many units in garrison and you end up with no manoeuvre force of any significance and your troops scattered accross the "board". So on balance I would favour pulling most if not all units back to the coast and leaving the inland cities to fend for themselves.

            Then you have to game out the movement of various legions and reserves from around the Empire to the point of attack. But again this is a balancing act. I don't think the Romans could strip their borders (especially the north) bare of units because to do so invites wholesale incursions by various barbarian alliances deep into the Empire. You can raise militias/call in veterans to at least partially replace "professional" units but this will take time and any such delay would need to be estimated and included in the scenario. You also have to estimate the possibility/probability of the Romans recruiting various allies and/neutral parties to their cause. Choose the period and then choose the allies and the size/type of contribution they make - plus how long they take to arrive - more complications.

            Defending the Sinai/Nile Delta and abandoning the rest of the Eastern Empire also has to be considered as an option however. Losing Egypt and its grain harvests would be a severe blow to Rome. The desirability of defending the passes/approaches to Anatolia also needs to be considered since (correct me if I'm wrong) the terrain on this "front" would suit a Roman army deployed defensivly far more than it would suit a Mongol Army. This strategy would therefore see the Romans dividing their forces along two fronts and attempting to simply "contain" the Mongols until they have pillaged the rest of the East and decide to move on (or settle down and stay - their choice).

            Whatever the "Roman side" decides to do as noted previously the biggest problem the Romans face will be the sheer size of any invading Mongol army - unless you deliberately decide the minimize the likely size/scope of the invasion. There are a hell of a lot of variables to include before you could hope to get valid outcomes.
            Last edited by Monash; 12 Jan 11,, 13:56.
            If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Monash View Post
              When I thought through this scenario my first thought was a withdrawal to the Levant - specifically the port cities on that coast. Firstly this allows for reinforcements to arrive as quickly as possible (and boy are the Romans going to need them). Secondly it creates problems for the Mongols, they can choose to bypass the Romans and head north towards Anatolia or south towards Egypt but either choice means leaving large Roman formations at their rear. The Romans also have the option of leaving strong garrisons in at least some major inland cities in the hope that the Mongols can be at least be partly delayed/hurt taking them - maybe the Mongols would oblige, maybe they would simply bypass any strong points along their lines of advance. But this requires a careful balancing act, leave too many units in garrison and you end up with no manoeuvre force of any significance and your troops scattered accross the "board". So on balance I would favour pulling most if not all units back to the coast and leaving the inland cities to fend for themselves.
              The reason i disregard this option was because it allowed the Mongols to maneuver towards Egypt, also if they attack early in the summer there might not be enogh food reserves to withstand a prolonged siege.
              With a emperor like Lucius Verus, a relief force might also take time to arrive.
              Originally posted by Monash View Post
              Defending the Sinai/Nile Delta and abandoning the rest of the Eastern Empire also has to be considered as an option however. Losing Egypt and its grain harvests would be a severe blow to Rome.
              The legions in modern turkey do not have time to withdraw south, besides I'm more comfortable leaving them where they are.
              Originally posted by Monash View Post
              The desirability of defending the passes/approaches to Anatolia also needs to be considered since (correct me if I'm wrong) the terrain on this "front" would suit a Roman army deployed defensivly far more than it would suit a Mongol Army. This strategy would therefore see the Romans dividing their forces along two fronts and attempting to simply "contain" the Mongols until they have pillaged the rest of the East and decide to move on (or settle down and stay - their choice).
              Correct, they are also well positioned to intercept wagon convoys loaded with plunder.
              Originally posted by Monash View Post
              Whatever the "Roman side" decides to do as noted previously the biggest problem the Romans face will be the sheer size of any invading Mongol army - unless you deliberately decide the minimize the likely size/scope of the invasion. There are a hell of a lot of variables to include before you could hope to get valid outcomes.
              If equally matched, we can offer battle;
              if slightly inferior in numbers, we can avoid the enemy;
              if quite unequal in every way, we can flee from him.
              Sun Tzu

              I'll address the other point you have raised ( about balancing reinforcements ) at a latter time .
              J'ai en marre.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by akash View Post
                Who would win?

                I say the Mongols would win easily because Romans are no match for the quick cavalry of the mongols. The slow-moving and heavily armored Roman soldiers would be destroyed by the Mongols.

                The Mongols were known to use gunpowder, and grenades and their methods of seige warfare would equal if not surpass the Romans.


                The Romans would be clearly overwhelmed.
                As a result Russian have won. Mongols became - Tatars and Kazakhs.On a theme: Mongols (numerical superiority, discipline on their party) would win certainly.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Monash View Post
                  When I thought through this scenario my first thought was a withdrawal to the Levant - specifically the port cities on that coast. Firstly this allows for reinforcements to arrive as quickly as possible (and boy are the Romans going to need them). Secondly it creates problems for the Mongols, they can choose to bypass the Romans and head north towards Anatolia or south towards Egypt but either choice means leaving large Roman formations at their rear. The Romans also have the option of leaving strong garrisons in at least some major inland cities in the hope that the Mongols can be at least be partly delayed/hurt taking them - maybe the Mongols would oblige, maybe they would simply bypass any strong points along their lines of advance. But this requires a careful balancing act, leave too many units in garrison and you end up with no manoeuvre force of any significance and your troops scattered accross the "board". So on balance I would favour pulling most if not all units back to the coast and leaving the inland cities to fend for themselves.
                  Because the Levant is so small and road rich the legions can move very fast. The cities provide bases of supply and anchor points. The Mongols can't seige with thier full force with a Roman Army in the feild. As long as the whole Mongol force stays together to oppose the Roman feild army, they can't sack cities, if they try to do both the numbers are more evenly matched. If the Mongols try to force the battle, the Romans can refuse or anchor between a city and coast.

                  Then you have to game out the movement of various legions and reserves from around the Empire to the point of attack. But again this is a balancing act. I don't think the Romans could strip their borders (especially the north) bare of units because to do so invites wholesale incursions by various barbarian alliances deep into the Empire.
                  Rome has about 25 legions, most of them outside of Britain are near major waterborne highways and can move rapidly. From the defeat at Beth Horon in the 4-8 November 66, Rome had three legions and local allies and troops assembled by April of 67. The news made it to parts of the empire not affected by the rebellion and troops were assembled, shipped and arrived in 4-5 months. It turns out the troops sent were already in Alexandria as part of Nero's plan to invade Eithiopia.

                  Using rather rough time frames 30BC-70AD The area of the Levant and surronding areas had 11 legions. Thats somewhere between 90-160,000 Imperial troops. During the jewish Revolt Herod Agrippa and loyal towns added 40,000 troops not counting garrisons. Assuming similar numbers of local troops per region (Syria, Judea, Anatolia, Egypt). The maximum Roman force not counting bar eminimum garrisons is 160,000 Imperial troops and 200,000 locals.

                  Judea- X Fretensis, VI Ferrata, III Gallica
                  Armenia- I Parthica,
                  Anatolia- XVI Flavia Firma, IV Scythica
                  Egypt- III Cyrenica. XXII Deiotarina
                  Syria- XXIV Othion Rapax, III Galicia, and VI Ferata

                  You can raise militias/call in veterans to at least partially replace "professional" units but this will take time and any such delay would need to be estimated and included in the scenario.
                  See above

                  Comment


                  • The Roman legions: general introduction
                    I Parthica
                    This army unit and its sisters II Parthica and III Parthica were founded in 197 by the emperor Lucius Septimius Severus, who used them in his war against the Parthian empire.
                    XVI Flavia Firma
                    The former legion XVI Gallica, which had been disgraced by its conduct during the Batavian revolt (69-70), was reconstituted by the emperor Vespasian under the name XVI Flavia Firma (Cassius Dio, Roman Histories, 55.24.3) and transferred to the eastern provinces. This transfer was some sort of punishment, because the soldiers of XVI Gallica were from Gaul in the west. Yet the men must have been happy that they were not dishonorably discharged.
                    III Galicia
                    ???
                    IV Scythia
                    Between 6 and 9 CE, IIII Scythica was active in the wars of Tiberius (the future emperor) against the Illyrians and Pannonians on the Middle Danube. Fighting was not the only activity of the legion. Several rock inscriptions prove the construction of roads and other works of engineering in the Danube area. The newly conquered country needed to be developed. Usually, IIII Scythica joined forces with V Macedonica. Among those who served in the legion was a young man named Titus Flavius Vespasianus, who is better known as the emperor Vespasian.
                    During the reign of Nero, the legion was transferred to the east.
                    The romans have to form 2 new legions and redeploy another 2 in order to have 11 legions in the area , if the invasion of Britain is put on hold, this might be feasible.
                    Last edited by 1979; 15 Jan 11,, 14:10.
                    J'ai en marre.

                    Comment


                    • Sorry about I Parthica

                      Depending on time there might be as many as 50 legions worth of trained troops available. If word of the Mongol advance reached Octavian in 30 BC just after the death of Antony there near 40 legions in the East.

                      Comment


                      • 50 legions worth of troops equals about 1.8 % out of 15 million roman citizens, ( using your figures because i don't have a reference at hand ).
                        They can certainly mobilize equip and train that many citizen soldiers during a crisis, but I'm not sure they are willing keep such a large standing army during peace time.
                        28 legions at the time of the Teoutoburg forest battle is 0.9 %, sustainable percentage even by today standards. Also the transformation of the auxiliary formations into standing units relieved some pressure from the roman citizens, without diminishing the total number of troops available.
                        Increasing the service length to 25 years means that each year the roman citizens have to provide only ~ 3.000 replacements for the discharged veterans. The draft standards could be increased accordingly (fewer replacements means you could afford choose only the best ), for the auxilia the standards would be even higher.

                        Overall Augustus seems to be a wiser leader than those who come before him.
                        Last edited by 1979; 16 Jan 11,, 13:50.
                        J'ai en marre.

                        Comment


                        • He could afford to be that wise.No more major wars.Even Teutoberg was nothing compared to Arausio .

                          Roman numbers are meaningless.We are assuming the Mongols just fell from the sky on their border.But in any case,the Mongols just cannot jump directly on the Romans-they cannot achieve 100% strategic surprise.The result of any major crisis in Parthia is that Roman armies would be increased in number,both by reinforcements and by raising local troops.

                          About the Sinai defense,it's feasible,but only after the rest of the Levant is lost.Then it depends on how many Roman troops are left.35-40000 are probably the upper limit anyway,from a logistic pov. They need to drink(a lot I may add).
                          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

                          Comment


                          • I assume you meant water :)
                            compared to the Mongols that is drop in the bucket , a horse drinks 20 times as much as a human , and the Mongols have more than just a horse.
                            J'ai en marre.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                              He could afford to be that wise.No more major wars.Even Teutoberg was nothing compared to Arausio .
                              Agustus also had the riches of the East and Egypt

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 1979 View Post
                                I assume you meant water :)
                                compared to the Mongols that is drop in the bucket , a horse drinks 20 times as much as a human , and the Mongols have more than just a horse.
                                Gods forbid.I'm a Dacian( probably a significant part ).Water causes rust,anyway.

                                15 millions?? I suppose you include women and children,but IIRC the number of citizens during Augustus was no more than 4-4.5 millions (men and women).The number of citizens during Augustus rose slowly,mainly due to auxiliaries ending their military service.Up until Caracalla the citizens number was never more than 10%.
                                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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X