Roman Empire VS Mongol Horde !

[cudomix]

Romans..

Mongolians were only successful because they rushed relatively unprepared countries with a large horde using minimal tactics. If it was Romans at the height of their power vs Mongolians at theirs, Mongols wouldnt stand a chance. Rome was very militarized and had master tacticians and it was quick to adapt as well. They would have lost some territories initially but would then have taken them back with superior tactics, defense (horse archer raids wouldnt do much against heavily armored and shielded legions and stone garrisons). Plus romans had ships, stone throwers, greek fire and they were masters of forging alliances where it mattered and dividing their enemies.

Please check your facts before writing nonsense. Mongols used siege engines regularly during their battles, even going so far to spare engineers from opponents and assimilating them into their armies. They also placed huge importance on battlefield organization and tactics (they protected their generals well and used flags for battlefield communication), and they promoted leaders and generals based on merit, not birth. Their armies also required little logistical support, which gave them incredible speed when needed (armies could advance hundred kilometers or even more in a single day), and they placed heavy emphasis on scouting.
As for Roman heavy armor, mongolian composite bows are second only to English longbows in range and draw weight, they could pierce anything except plate armour, which wasn't exactly common (also, lorica segmentata was never comon in Roman legions, regardless what you usually see in movies and books, lorica hamata or squamata were common armors of Roman legionnaires).

As much as i love Roman Empire, in this case it is absolutely no contest, Mongols would win by a landslide.

[Zdrasti]

The Mongols have 1000 years advantage over the Romans. Technology and tactics tend to improve over time, especially when battle tested. Both were nearly unrivaled in their day, but the Mongols just have far too much going for them. No contest imo.

[muto]

The Mongol Empire by far.

[Bakis]

The Mongols have 1000 years advantage over the Romans. Technology and tactics tend to improve over time, especially when battle tested. Both were nearly unrivaled in their day, but the Mongols just have far too much going for them. No contest imo.

Actually not much changed untill gun powder was introduced commonly

[Sam the Wiser]

He killed millions of people, raped thousands of women. He wanted to depopulate mainland china to turn it into pasture land for his horses, and was supposedly only convined not to do it because chinese servants told him that you could tax the people and get more use out of them that way than you would if you just eradicated them all. He was a genocidal lunatic of proportions that are almost incomprehensible.

The mongols' cruelty in wiping out peoples puts the natzis to shame. They would do stuff like completely genocide an entire city, kill most of the men and women, and take the rest either as slaves, or take them along to use as cannon-fodder nfor the next city they took, driving them in front of them like cattle, and leading them in front of them during sieges to absorb all the casualties. After genociding cities, they'd send back forces a week or so later to kill everyone who was hiding when they first left, to make sure that they got absolutely everyone.

What's that quote I keep hearing about what the romans did? "They make a desert and call it peace"? What the mongols did was infinitely much worse than what the romans did. They were a great army, an impressive civilization, and they did create peace in one of the historically most dangerous parts of the world, but they were still fucking evil in as unhyperbolic a way as that description has ever been used. Calling Genghis "very tolerant" is like calling Hitler "very tolerant". It might even be worse.

You dear insult the great Khan so! Ye shell know his wrath!

[Prokne]

Actually not much changed untill gun powder was introduced commonly

Stirrups were invented between the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Mongols which is a pretty large improvement on the efficiency of mounted archers. You dont need them since there were horse archers before stirrups but it makes it easier.

[Reeve]

Mongols.

The Romans were pretty badass but they'd be wiped off the face of the earth against the Mongols. It would be pretty epic though.

They wouldn't have come over the Bosporus. They likely would have come down through the Balkans, which was rich plundering ground even for relatively unorganized Germanic tribes. They certainly wouldn't have been able to take on the strongest military of the pre-gunpowder era.

[Deleted]

Nerf horse archers!

[Mithfir]

Let me get this straight. This meant no Dark Ages, no barbarian invasions, no decline of the Roman Empire in the west, no Seljuk invasion of the Byzantine Empire, no Umayyad invasion of Iberia, no Hundred Year War, no Crusaders sacking Constantinople, no Latin Empire... The full might of the Roman Empire growing unopposed for centuries?

And you expect the Mongols to WIN?! Perhaps the Romans would have suffered early defeats, but they would have adapted. See how Hungary fared and learned after the Mongols first invaded. They were already reaching their limit against Poland, Serbia and Hungary in the late 13th century. I can imagine how they would have fared in an imaginary scenario against the full Roman Empire, plus 800 years of unopposed growth.

[Rodna]

Scenario:
In the 13th Century, the Mongol Horde slaughtered it's way through central and eastern Europe. With plans to control the Black Sea, the Mongol Empire attacks the Roman Empire in what is now Turkey and Romania. But who is victorious? That, is for you to decide. Feel free to edit the map if you like or discuss the short and long term effects of the war.

Depends on how the Roman Empire survives...

The Byzantine Empire was doomed when the failure at Manzikert led to a decade of internal power struggles that allowed the Turks to run amok in the empire's heartland. If the Roman Empire survived through sheer luck without resolving the same issues, it's not likely to survive well against the Mongols.

[vetinari]

Neither would win, because of the terrain. Mounted armies ain't that great outside of flat grassland.

[Deleted]

The Scenario assumes that the Roman Empire survived it's downfall, and stopped expanding at the peak of it's empire until the 13th century when the Mongols invaded. I should have really added a poll >.<

[Bakis]

The Scenario assumes that the Roman Empire survived it's downfall, and stopped expanding at the peak of it's empire until the 13th century when the Mongols invaded. I should have really added a poll >.<

Dont worry, posters made the asumption both powers were at the height of their power considering the map you posted
Either way, a Bieber concert would route both armies any day

[Knight Gil]

Romans..

Mongolians were only successful because they rushed relatively unprepared countries with a large horde using minimal tactics. If it was Romans at the height of their power vs Mongolians at theirs, Mongols wouldnt stand a chance. Rome was very militarized and had master tacticians and it was quick to adapt as well. They would have lost some territories initially but would then have taken them back with superior tactics, defense (horse archer raids wouldnt do much against heavily armored and shielded legions and stone garrisons). Plus romans had ships, stone throwers, greek fire and they were masters of forging alliances where it mattered and dividing their enemies.

This right here is what everyone's been forgetting. War is not only about physical confrontation. Mongols might have had so much strength and numbers, but romans were masters of manipulation. Bribing, assassinating, spreading intrigue, etc, can be the downfall of an empire. Romans themselves were victims of their own tactics.

And let's not forget acculturation. It can be a form of conquest

[Deleted]

The Romans would lose a few battles, learn, adapt, and win the war with improved tactics.

[Reeve]

The Romans would lose a few battles, learn, adapt, and win the war with improved tactics.

If the Romans survived the initial assault, there were times in their history they might have done this. The Punic Wars, for example, where they lost every battle for years, had their armies totally decimated and still came back to win. The Romans WERE really good at adapting their tactics, but they didn't do it overnight. It often took them decades or even centuries. At the height of their power, the Romans had no defense against composite bow horse archers or from the tactics and capabilities of steppe people. The Great Khans could have easily pushed through the Roman Empire from one end to the other before the Romans had the ability to get off their laurels and adapt.

[Deleted]

If the Romans survived the initial assault, there were times in their history they might have done this. The Punic Wars, for example, where they lost every battle for years, had their armies totally decimated and still came back to win. The Romans WERE really good at adapting their tactics, but they didn't do it overnight. It often took them decades or even centuries. At the height of their power, the Romans had no defense against composite bow horse archers or from the tactics and capabilities of steppe people. The Great Khans could have easily pushed through the Roman Empire from one end to the other before the Romans had the ability to get off their laurels and adapt.

Carthago and hannibal's failed siege tactics are actually pretty similar to a possible roman vs Mongolian outcome in my opinion.
Hannibal's plan of turning rome's allies against Rome just didn't work.

[Dezerte]

Who is...

The Deadliest Warrior!

Shame, they never did do a comparison of roman centurions with the mongols

[Reeve]

Carthago and hannibal's failed siege tactics are actually pretty similar to a possible roman vs Mongolian outcome in my opinion.
Hannibal's plan of turning rome's allies against Rome just didn't work.

The Carthaginians didn't have the troops or the wherewithal to attack the Roman Cities. The Mongols, on the other hand, were quite good at taking cities.

---------- Post added 2013-03-29 at 02:34 PM ----------

Who is...

The Deadliest Warrior!

Shame, they never did do a comparison of roman centurions with the mongols

Honestly I'd be more interested in the deadliest military than the deadliest warrior. It's what the warriors did in concert with each other that was more important.

[Dezerte]

Honestly I'd be more interested in the deadliest military than the deadliest warrior. It's what the warriors did in concert with each other that was more important.

Yeah, it was a joke.