U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 05-16-2014, 12:06 AM
 
1,030 posts, read 1,161,937 times
Reputation: 2381

Advertisements

Assuming they were to fight both at their strongest and greatest extent, who do you think would be the likely victor?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-16-2014, 12:09 AM
 
1,198 posts, read 912,499 times
Reputation: 1493
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeaceAndLove42 View Post
Assuming they were to fight both at their strongest and greatest extent, who do you think would be the likely victor?
are you serious? lol
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2014, 01:14 AM
 
Location: Peterborough, England
472 posts, read 754,601 times
Reputation: 409
Well, given that the Romans were fought to a standstill by a middling power like Parthia, I should think the Mongols win quite easily.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2014, 01:34 AM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,794 posts, read 13,579,606 times
Reputation: 7921
The more organized, better funded group will win in the long run, every time. Think FBI vs Mafia or Microsoft vs. Netscape. The Romans would have won.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2014, 03:25 AM
 
Location: Peterborough, England
472 posts, read 754,601 times
Reputation: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
The more organized, better funded group will win in the long run, every time. Think FBI vs Mafia or Microsoft vs. Netscape. The Romans would have won.
Didn't work for either the Chinese or the Persians.

Anyway, would Rome necessarily be better funded? By the time the Mongols reach the Danube, they have most of Asia to draw on for resources.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2014, 06:10 AM
 
28,906 posts, read 45,202,743 times
Reputation: 45815
Depends on where they would have met and fought and how suitable the country was to cavalry.

If the Romans had encountered the Mongols in flat, open country such as Poland or Russia, then the Mongols would have had the open hand.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2014, 06:29 AM
 
22,770 posts, read 25,186,842 times
Reputation: 14506
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpg35223 View Post
Depends on where they would have met and fought and how suitable the country was to cavalry.

If the Romans had encountered the Mongols in flat, open country such as Poland or Russia, then the Mongols would have had the open hand.
agreed, my money would be on the romans successfully defending the carpathians and the balkans

plus the romans would've had the naval capacity to manoeuvre around the black sea

the mongolians weren't too keen on heavily forested areas, so i can't imagine them pushing too far westward
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2014, 06:51 AM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,051,757 times
Reputation: 14878
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
the mongolians weren't too keen on heavily forested areas,
Forrest weren't the Roman's friend either, having been annihilated in the Teutoburg Forest.

Last edited by ovcatto; 05-16-2014 at 07:02 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2014, 07:17 AM
 
11,564 posts, read 17,496,164 times
Reputation: 17201
Mongols are skirmishers, mounted on fast horses, with bow. They are in their element in the open steppes. But, they were also adapt at siege warfare.
The romans would never be able to match them on horseback on any terrain. But they can draw them into a battle with good ground that is not adapt to skirmishing on horseback. Just like the previous posters said, draw them into the forests of western Europe, pick good ground that would force the Mongols to fight in close.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2014, 07:25 AM
 
Location: San Diego
2,858 posts, read 6,201,488 times
Reputation: 1962
Mongols 90 out of 100 battles. The use of horses completely changed things forever. Additionally, they were SAVAGES and destroyed everything in their path. The Romans for the most part only destroyed major cities as a sign to the smaller cities to give up. The Mongols didn't give a F. Plus, the Byzantine portion of the Roman empire was weak for a long time and the Western Empire had to keep giving money to them.

I don't think this is a fair comparison. Alot of time in between...
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top