Mongol Empire vs. Roman Empire

[demoore]

More than 1000 years separates the two empires.
Another poll, which between the Mongol (1200) army and the actual Chinese army would have won? Or the Mongol (1200) army and actual Swiss army?

[Inst]

Hey, on the other hand, the Mongols were nomads. They wouldn't have had any real technological advance in 1200 years. Or actually, when did the Mongols finally go up to the composite bow, anyways?

[IDonT]

Hey, on the other hand, the Mongols were nomads. They wouldn't have had any real technological advance in 1200 years. Or actually, when did the Mongols finally go up to the composite bow, anyways?

The Mongols had used the composite bows for centuries before Genghis. What the Mongols have that the other nomad groups did not was the implementation of discipline, organization, and merit base advancement. A single Mongolian Tumen commanded by Subutai will defeat any roman army sent to face it.

[zraver]

The Mongols had used the composite bows for centuries before Genghis. What the Mongols have that the other nomad groups did not was the implementation of discipline, organization, and merit base advancement. A single Mongolian Tumen commanded by Subutai will defeat any roman army sent to face it.

not quite, Sudedei was one of the best, but Rome had generals who were equally capable. The Mongols would be hard pressed to beat Scipio or Julius Ceaser.

[astralis]

zraver,

different types of fighting. did caesar or scipio ever deal with horse archers, much? scipio probably had more experience with his african fights, but caesar's accomplishments were largely against other romans or the gauls, whom didn't really go for the horse archer thing (understandable given terrain).

[ExNavyAmerican]

The Romans might have been defeated the first several times around, but as Scipio proved in fighting Hannibal in Italy, Romans could adapt, and they'd fight the Mongols on ground where the Mongols' numbers would be negligible, and then they'd use their far superior technology to beat them. And always remember, the Romans too had their share of good horseman out of Sarmatia, and Spain. They also had good archers out of Syria, so, in the end, I believe that the Romans would win against the Mongols by a landslide.

[astralis]

exnavyamerican,

then they'd use their far superior technology to beat them.

really? the mongols had stirrups, their bow, and siege weapons from china. certainly the mongols dusted the polish and the hungarians, and their armor was beyond what rome had.

in any case, the mongols were beaten by the mamelukes, and no one else, really (the japanese hardly count: they really WERE saved by the kamikaze). song china stopped them for a while with mass-produced gunpowder weapons (firebolts, guns, grenades, flamethrowers, rockets, poison-gas rockets, even!), but in the end, even the song went under. and the song were able to raise men far more easily than rome, even in rome's heyday.

meanwhile the romans had their arse handed to them by the huns, the persians, the kelts, carthage (for a while), the parthians, the goths...IIRC rome's main strength was its iron discipline, and once that got replaced with mercenaries...

all hypothetical but for some reason this topic seems to be a fun one

[ExNavyAmerican]

exnavyamerican,



really? the mongols had stirrups, their bow, and siege weapons from china. certainly the mongols dusted the polish and the hungarians, and their armor was beyond what rome had.

in any case, the mongols were beaten by the mamelukes, and no one else, really (the japanese hardly count: they really WERE saved by the kamikaze). song china stopped them for a while with mass-produced gunpowder weapons (firebolts, guns, grenades, flamethrowers, rockets, poison-gas rockets, even!), but in the end, even the song went under. and the song were able to raise men far more easily than rome, even in rome's heyday.

meanwhile the romans had their arse handed to them by the huns, the persians, the kelts, carthage (for a while), the parthians, the goths...IIRC rome's main strength was its iron discipline, and once that got replaced with mercenaries...

all hypothetical but for some reason this topic seems to be a fun one

The Romans DID have superior technology. There is no doubt about it. A lot of it was derived from Greek study, but from aqueducts to the steam engine: the Romans were advanced. In contrast, the Mongols didn't even have metalworking at the time of their conquesst.

They got their siege weapons from China, but they didn't tug them across Asia into Europe, and, guess what: the Romans had siege weapons too-weapons superior to those of China: i.e. the ballisti. And their armor was NOT superior to Roman armor. Roman armor was highly adavanced being a cross between scaled, and chain mail. Whereas the Mongols wore leather. And again: the Romans also had calvary-very good calvary. As a matter of fact, each legion's auxillary force contained a force of Archers, as well as calvary.

Song China was beaten because they helped the Mongols conquer the northern Jin Empire, and in so doing gave the Mongols siege technology, and the knowledge of how to use siege weapons. If they hadn't of done this, the Mongols would have been defeated very easily by the technologically superior Song Empire.

Most of what you referred to when talking about Roman defeats happened before the Empire was even formed; or when they were about to fall. And the Romans, with Gothic support, were able to defeat the the Huns at the battle of Chalons-Sur-Marne in the year 451. The Celts were able to drive the Romans from Britain only after centuries of the Romans dominating the island, and they were only driven from it at the end of their life. Carthage doesn't come in the same package as the Mongols; their methods of fighting, their tech, and the fact that the used infantry makes them radically different from the Mogols. Not very good for comparisson. Anyway, they were completely destroyed by Rome. The Persians wre subdued, but never defeated, several times by the Romans, and were eventually defeated by the Byzantines (Eastern Rome) in the 6th, and 7th centuries. The strength or Rome did not lie solely with its iron discipline, and saying so is an afront to history. And the Romans' main problem towards the end of their life was not mercenaries, but the fact that there were too few Roman to fill the ranks anymore-ethnic Romans wre largely killed off in a plague in the 4th century.

And mercenaries, by the way, were extremely disciplined fighters. The main contingent of the Carthaginian army was made up of Numidian Mercenaries, and you've already pointed out Carthage's fighting ability.

[zraver]

exnavyamerican,



really? the mongols had stirrups, their bow, and siege weapons from china. certainly the mongols dusted the polish and the hungarians, and their armor was beyond what rome had.

in any case, the mongols were beaten by the mamelukes, and no one else, really (the japanese hardly count: they really WERE saved by the kamikaze). song china stopped them for a while with mass-produced gunpowder weapons (firebolts, guns, grenades, flamethrowers, rockets, poison-gas rockets, even!), but in the end, even the song went under. and the song were able to raise men far more easily than rome, even in rome's heyday.

meanwhile the romans had their arse handed to them by the huns, the persians, the kelts, carthage (for a while), the parthians, the goths...IIRC rome's main strength was its iron discipline, and once that got replaced with mercenaries...

all hypothetical but for some reason this topic seems to be a fun one

A couple of misconceptions.

1- The Mongols after the death of the first two generations were really not all that feirce, that is why the Mamlukes beat them. It is doubtful the Mongols had the staying power to subjagate Rome. great parts of Europe are not conductive to horse archers or cavalry in general. Ther eis a reason infantry dominated ancient Europe.

2- Roman seige engines like ballista onegars, and trebuchets were superior to Chinese manpowered engines. Rome also had superior engineers and massive manpower reserves. It was not until the late imperial age that Roman legions declined in numbers and skill.

3- Rome had superior strategic mobility along the coast. She could move entire armies to threatened cities with impunity. While the Mongols would have controlled the interior, but the bulk of the population and wealth was along the coast.

4- In tems of technology its 6 of one of half dozen of another. No Army before the industrial age was so devoted to war. Romes technology was leathal and very effective. Lorica segmentata was nearly arrow proof even vs Mongol bows at all but the closest ranges. The Scutum was the best sheild in the ancient world, Roman helms and the segmentata made plunging fire all but useless, and the pilum could do duty as a pike or a javalin. And if the gladius ever got into use it would be all over for the horsemen. Given Rome's many victories over horse archers and cavalry based armies she could easily adapt to Mongol tactics over time.

[astralis]

so, the question is,

if rome could do all this- why couldn't any of the empires whom faced the mongol hordes do this? japanese lucked out, russians got beat, polish got beat, hungarians got beat, chinese got beat, caliphate got beat, persians got beat...

[ExNavyAmerican]

so, the question is,

if rome could do all this- why couldn't any of the empires whom faced the mongol hordes do this? japanese lucked out, russians got beat, polish got beat, hungarians got beat, chinese got beat, caliphate got beat, persians got beat...

As you said, the Japanese lucked out, but if it were not for the typhoon, they probaly would have gotten beat because they weren't very advanced.

The Europeans, and Slavic peoples of the middle ages were not very advanced, there was a lack of unity, and thereby a lack of manpower to terminate the Mongol advance; such was not the case in the Roman Empire.

The Arabs were weakened, and distracted by the crusader states, and were not ready for the Mongol onslaught. Also, the Moslem empire was no longer united, so the same problems I outlined above could also apply here. And the Persians were vastly outnumbered.

China only lost because they taught the Mongols the art of siege warfare for the purpose of defeating their northern neighbor the Jin Empire-a very stupid thing to do-and the Mongols turned on the Chinese.

None of these problems plagued the Romans until the 4th, and 5th centuries.

[deadkenny]

The Europeans, and Slavic peoples of the middle ages were not very advanced, ....

They were, for the most part, far more 'advanced' in the 1240's than the (Western) Roman Empire had been - certainly in terms of military 'hardware'. Hungarian or Polish 'knights' from 1240 would have 'crushed' a Roman legion, as they would have crushed just about any infantry short of a disiplined pike carrying formation. The 'core' of the (Western) Roman Empire military for centuries was the shortshort wielding infantry in 'loose' formation. They were fortunate in that they didn't have to face many foes with good heavy cavalry. The Romans did well against the spear carrying infantry of the Hellenistic world in the east, and the even 'looser' barbarian hordes of the north and west. However it was exactly those opponents with good cavalry (e.g. Parthians, Huns) that they struggled against.

[Amled]

3- Rome had superior strategic mobility along the coast. She could move entire armies to threatened cities with impunity. While the Mongols would have controlled the interior, but the bulk of the population and wealth was along the coast.

Case in point being Hannibal after the Battle of Cannae, where he never had the numbers nor the siege train to march on Rome, nor any of the heavily fortified Roman cities.
Also as Quintus Fabius Maximus showed when faced with Hannibal. In that Rome had an uncanny skill of fielding new legions; especially when fighting in the home provinces, in no small part due to their shorter lines of communications.
Whereas, that unless the Mongols had access to Chinese siege expertise, then they too might win battles and loose the war, due to their extended lines of communications.

[pdf27]

They were fortunate in that they didn't have to face many foes with good heavy cavalry.

Ummm... there was no such thing as heavy cavalry until the invention of the stirrup, quite some time after the fall of the Roman empire. Prior to the stirrup, fighting from horseback was rather a chancy business.

[ExNavyAmerican]

Case in point being Hannibal after the Battle of Cannae, where he never had the numbers nor the siege train to march on Rome, nor any of the heavily fortified Roman cities.
Also as Quintus Fabius Maximus showed when faced with Hannibal. In that Rome had an uncanny skill of fielding new legions; especially when fighting in the home provinces, in no small part due to their shorter lines of communications.
Whereas, that unless the Mongols had access to Chinese siege expertise, then they too might win battles and loose the war, due to their extended lines of communications.

That seems to me to e the greatest problem; they may have had Chinese siege experts, ut it would have been extremely tricky to get them from China to Asia Minor, Dacia, or Palestine.