Roman Empire VS Mongol Horde !

[Noomz]

It would've been an interesting clash. The Roman legions and their shields might've been effective against the Mongols.

The Byzantine Empire doesn't count at all. They were the last remnant of the Roman Empire after it's height of power.

[Deleted]

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 ----------



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.

Sure, at the end of the day the ability of an army to win wars is strictly connected to that army's ability to plan far ahead in time. And Im not sure the Mongolian horde, even if what they achieved is legendary, had enough skills in "long term" warfare. Not only war machines, but alliances had to be forged, so conquered people had to be kept loyal, you know... Politics really.

[Linkedblade]

I'm not too sure. I would like to see some numbers (trying to look some up). I want to know exactly how large each force was, with number of cavalry and ballistas and such. I think the Mongols would win in a direct army vs army conflict. They happened to be battle hardened and probably had much more experience than the Roman legions.

[Reeve]

It would've been an interesting clash. The Roman legions and their shields might've been effective against the Mongols.

The Byzantine Empire doesn't count at all. They were the last remnant of the Roman Empire after it's height of power.

The Byzantine Empire was hardly just a last remnant of power. They were a great power in their own right, and their tactics had evolved and improved since the height of the Roman Empire. By the Byzantine era they were using armored heavy cavalry and steppe horse archers in their militaries, in addition to the almost solely heavy infantry (with some cavalry and foreign auxiliaries) that the Romans once used.

[ptwonline]

Mongols would win. Sorta.

Roman Legions at the height of Roman power could defeat a Mongol army in a pitched battle, and so the Mongols would simply not allow a picthed battle. The Romans would have to pursue, but the Mongols' mobility would allow them to strike at Roman supply lines. Eventually the Romans would have to back off, and even Roman armies could get picked off piecemeal in retreats.

The problem with all Steppe horse armies is that they could raid, but holding territory was difficult for them. So they could raid and raid, but Rome would still stand unless the Mongols committed enough genocide to depopulate the lands, and then who would they raid?

[Bakis]

Roman Legions at the height of Roman power could defeat a Mongol army in a pitched battle, and so the Mongols would simply not allow a picthed battle.

Since the mongols that are on horseback have to be the attacker and through terrain truly hostile to mounted warfare I would say the romans would have every opportunity to get a pitched battle.
Romans would be able to pick location and entrench + yaks suck!

[Deleted]

Don't forget the location for the battles occur in East Turkey and North Romania. Mongols have a huge advantage in open warfare but when the Terrain is raised, the Romans would have a brilliant military advantage.

[Mithfir]

It would've been an interesting clash. The Roman legions and their shields might've been effective against the Mongols.

The Byzantine Empire doesn't count at all. They were the last remnant of the Roman Empire after it's height of power.

Which only lasted almost 1000 years after the fall of Rome. You didn't know they called themselves the Empire of the Romans up to the end?

[Zallex]

Romans without a doubt

Rome at the height of its power had a highly professional army with the top of the line equipment and strategic planning.

No way the mongols could have stood a chance against Rome at its height

[Kalis]

Mongols would devastate most of Anatolia and, assuming they could cross the Bosphorus and not get their transports annihilated by Roman warships, they would then get stuck at Constantinople - its walls would be impregnable and it could be supplied by sea.

A lot would depend on the tactics used by the Romans, if they went for a pitched battle in terrain that suited cavalry, then their armies would get humiliated on a regular basis; if, on the other hand, they used slash and burn tactics and kept retreating, then the Mongols could only go so far into the Roman Empire before running out of supplies for their cavalry.

Rome would probably wear the Mongols down, and take advantage of naval power, but the destruction caused to the Empire could well see it collapse.

As the Romans had a tendency to bore everyone into submission, I think Alexander the Great versus the Mongols would be far more interesting - he had a habit of developing tactics to suit the situation, and had shown impressive tactical flexiblity against horse archers prior to conquering the Persian Empire.

[Pfeff]

Mongols win all day everyday. Romans have no way to deal with their blitzkreig cavalry tactics. They move too fast.

The Mongols used to move faster than the word that they were even there attacking. When your army is outrunning your enemy's messengers, you are in a prime position lol. Without warning for a siege like that you have no chance

[Wikiy]

Romans would win. Several reasons why:

1) The Roman Empire was extremely powerful even back in the ancient times. In the 13th century, the population of the empire would be several times greater, and there's also a big chance they would've conquered the rest of Europe, otherwise they would've perished.
2) The area of the Roman empire is far smaller than that of the Mongol empire which means it would've been easier for Romans to defend it due to smaller borders.
3) The Mongol Empire wasn't as organized.

[Pfeff]

Mongols would devastate most of Anatolia and, assuming they could cross the Bosphorus and not get their transports annihilated by Roman warships, they would then get stuck at Constantinople - its walls would be impregnable and it could be supplied by sea.

A lot would depend on the tactics used by the Romans, if they went for a pitched battle in terrain that suited cavalry, then their armies would get humiliated on a regular basis; if, on the other hand, they used slash and burn tactics and kept retreating, then the Mongols could only go so far into the Roman Empire before running out of supplies for their cavalry.

Rome would probably wear the Mongols down, and take advantage of naval power, but the destruction caused to the Empire could well see it collapse.

As the Romans had a tendency to bore everyone into submission, I think Alexander the Great versus the Mongols would be far more interesting - he had a habit of developing tactics to suit the situation, and had shown impressive tactical flexiblity against horse archers prior to conquering the Persian Empire.

That's simply not true. The Mongols had one of (if not the strongest) Navy in the world during the 13th century. They only lost it when they went after the Japanese with it (I think, maybe it was some other Asian country, but I think it was Japan)

[Kalis]

...Genghis was a very tolerant and intelligent man, who supported...freedom of religion (something usually not found in ancient Empires

Most ancient empires were tolerant of foreign religions - until monotheism reared its head.

Empires incorporated local religions into theirs, often as an aspect of their existing deities, and the problems that Judaism and Christianity faced were due to them being unable to accept any other gods, e.g. they refused to acknowledge the divine honours bestowed on the Imperial Roman family.

---------- Post added 2013-03-29 at 08:36 PM ----------

That's simply not true. The Mongols had one of (if not the strongest) Navy in the world during the 13th century. They only lost it when they went after the Japanese with it (I think, maybe it was some other Asian country, but I think it was Japan)

The Romans would have had Greek Fire by the 13th Century...good luck with that.

[Pfeff]

Most ancient empires were tolerant of foreign religions - until monotheism reared its head.

Empires incorporated local religions into theirs, often as an aspect of their existing deities, and the problems that Judaism and Christianity faced were due to them being unable to accept any other gods, e.g. they refused to acknowledge the divine honours bestowed on the Imperial Roman family.

---------- Post added 2013-03-29 at 08:36 PM ----------



The Romans would have had Greek Fire by the 13th Century...good luck with that.

I don't think the Mongols would win on sea, by any means. I'm just pointing out that it wouldn't be as much of a stomping as some people are saying. Mongolian Navy isn't something very often talked about

[Kalis]

I don't think the Mongols would win on sea, by any means. I'm just pointing out that it wouldn't be as much of a stomping as some people are saying. Mongolian Navy isn't something very often talked about

Not often talked about, because it wasn't used very often.

The Eastern Mediterranean portion of the Roman Empire were all seafaring nations, with huge experience of the area that the Mongols would need to control. Not only that, but the Mongols would need to build the boats that they wished to use - the Romans could just maintain a blockade of any port and stifle any attempt the Mongols made.

[Deleted]

When you think about it the ottomans defeated the eastern roman empire and got Constantinople and they were fewer and weaker then the Mongol but used the same tactics as them because they came from the same region.

[Risale]

Mongols no question about it.

1. fact romans could never beat the Parthians (mongols used similar weapons and tacticts and mongols were more numerous)
2. fact mongols always learned from each enemy they conquered so on the road from Asia to Europe they learned about siege weapons etc etc
3. fact mongols applied germ warfare by catapulting dead bodies into cities refusing to surrender.
4. fact mongol logistics couldn't be cut
5. fact mongols far more mobile then romans ie they could bypass 90% of whatever romans would try and put in their way as it would not be in place in time.
6. fact romans at any stage were bogged down by bureaucracy, mongols were not.

As to somebodies post about him being the greatest evil ever or something to that fact keep in mind morals of the time were different you can't overlay that on todays virtues at all.
Ghengis Khan always gave cities a choice surrender or die and he meant what he said, those that surrendered lived those that didn't died simple as that.

Fact he abolished torture,
Fact he embraced religious freedom,
Fact he united disparate tribes,
Fact he hated aristocratic privilege,
Fact he ran his kingdoms meritocratically,
Fact he loved learning
Fact he advanced the rights of women.
Fact he was also the greatest conqueror and general who ever lived, ruling a self-made kingdom of nearly 12-million square miles which lasted in parts for nearly seven centuries.
Fact he was violent and war-like, but never for its own sake.
The Mongols found no honor in fighting–only winning. Victory was their aim and they did whatever it took to get it. Then they focused on building peace with equal intensity. So while other conquerors died violent, early deaths, Khan died an old man (66 was very very old for that time)

[Bakis]

I suggest we all settle for the 20th of June, we meet up at a location in Turkey later to be announced. Team up in two groups and fight about it.
If the skinny yak-riding wins the mongols would have won.
If the erotic dancers oiled up from head toe in olive oil wins the romans would have won.

Seems pretty fair and straight forward to me.

[Deleted]

Mongols no question about it.

1. fact romans could never beat the Parthians (mongols used similar weapons and tacticts and mongols were more numerous)
2. fact mongols always learned from each enemy they conquered so on the road from Asia to Europe they learned about siege weapons etc etc
3. fact mongols applied germ warfare by catapulting dead bodies into cities refusing to surrender.
4. fact mongol logistics couldn't be cut
5. fact mongols far more mobile then romans ie they could bypass 90% of whatever romans would try and put in their way as it would not be in place in time.
6. fact romans at any stage were bogged down by bureaucracy, mongols were not.

As to somebodies post about him being the greatest evil ever or something to that fact keep in mind morals of the time were different you can't overlay that on todays virtues at all.
Ghengis Khan always gave cities a choice surrender or die and he meant what he said, those that surrendered lived those that didn't died simple as that.

Fact he abolished torture,
Fact he embraced religious freedom,
Fact he united disparate tribes,
Fact he hated aristocratic privilege,
Fact he ran his kingdoms meritocratically,
Fact he loved learning
Fact he advanced the rights of women.
Fact he was also the greatest conqueror and general who ever lived, ruling a self-made kingdom of nearly 12-million square miles which lasted in parts for nearly seven centuries.
Fact he was violent and war-like, but never for its own sake.
The Mongols found no honor in fighting–only winning. Victory was their aim and they did whatever it took to get it. Then they focused on building peace with equal intensity. So while other conquerors died violent, early deaths, Khan died an old man (66 was very very old for that time)

Yes that's wonderful, but you're not comparing that to "some other empire". You're comparing it to the Roman Empire. Probably the most advanced society in this part of the world. With a quality of life for its citizens unmatched for hundreds of years afterwards. A source of culture for a thousand years after its decline.
If you want to make a list about gengis khan and its horde's feats, you might want to include the lengthy roman empire's list of feats too.

Surprise and speed would win them a few but I think the Romans would find a counter eventually and wear them down.

I like what someone suggested, Alexander the Great would be a much more interesting match for gengis khan.