Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-16-2014, 01:01 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,906,291 times
Reputation: 15038

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
Roman armies won victories in Northern Europe and suffered devastating defeats in Italy itself.
The issue was the inability of the Mongols fighting ability in forested terrain. I simply pointed out that the Roman's weren't particular good at it either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-16-2014, 01:43 PM
 
18,775 posts, read 27,211,361 times
Reputation: 20123


If you were to closely look at the map. about 3rd of it is heavily forested areas. A lot of it is mountains.

One thing you all either forget, or don't know, is that it is very incorrect to quote Mongols militaries as "wild", "disorganized", "band" type of force.
Au contraire, Mongols were superiorly well organized and had discipline+responsibilities for each soldier, unsurpassed by anyone else. LIFE was the only punishment and not ONE life, but lives of many for mistake of ONE. Families included.
2nd part to this is - unwind the history. Mongols conquered, what was considered in-conquerable at that time - China. China, then, was about the most technologically and militaristically advanced country in the world.
Guess who was Mongols military strategists, advisers, engineers, even cooks? You got it.
This is why there is so much Chinese culture influence in modern Russia and even Ukraine, countries that spent 400 years under Mongol led foot. Clothes styles, cuisine, heck, even hairdos. Famous Cossack "oseledets", herring hairdo, is clearly borrowed from China. Even Cossack military dance, gopak, is nothing but combination of various martial arts moves.
So indeed, one better organized, with better strategy, MORE MOBILE, disciplined armies would have won for sure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2014, 04:25 PM
 
14,986 posts, read 23,763,163 times
Reputation: 26473
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133 View Post
Horses were used before the Mongols. The Huns were like the Mongols. They were eventually beaten by the a weaken Western Roman Empire.
There were a few differences. Huns didn't use the stirrup, Mongols did (simple, but extremely important in horsemanship). Also the Mongols bred the horses to higher standards then the Huns, are were developed over the centuries. Stronger, faster, sturdier.
They also had a developed military hierarchy - squadrons, regiments, divisions. It's leaders were promoted based on merit, while simililiar kingdoms mostly promoted based on family importance and money. Gheghis Kahn's forces were disciplined.
There strength - the horse - is also their weakness. It's not all moving from the steppes and fighting in the forests, but the logistics. Horses must be maintained. Vast horse armies can eat-out a cultivated land, particularly when they leave the grasslands. They were unsustainable in the farmlands of the west. When the mongols took over these domesticated provinces, they developed the traditional westernized ways of fighting close-in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2014, 04:29 PM
 
Location: Peterborough, England
472 posts, read 922,043 times
Reputation: 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
agreed, my money would be on the romans successfully defending the carpathians and the balkans

How many legions could they spare for the Balkans?

If the Mongols have overrun Parthia, then the Romans face a much more formidable enemy on the Euphrates, so presumably need more of their army there. Also, iirc the Carpathians are not their border except in Transylvania, which the Mongols can easily circle round.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2014, 04:32 PM
 
14,986 posts, read 23,763,163 times
Reputation: 26473
Quote:
Originally Posted by travric View Post
Would be intriguing if on an open plain to see them attacking a 'sitting' legion. Kind of like flys whizzing around a turtle, no? Curous to know if the Mongols trained their horses to approach an enemy in a static and 'blocked' position like perhaps a square or to avoid head on approaches altogether.
They wouldn't directly attack a fixed position. They would sting at the enemy - advance, unleash their bows, and run off on fast horses. Eventually wearing down an enemy and/or drawing out the enemies from their fixed position where they would then be slaughtered. The European tradition of fighting your foe face to face was unknown to them. The concept of the brave heroic charge - unknown. It appears it was all impersonal to them, like a hunt.
Like flys whizzing around - yup.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2014, 05:09 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,906,291 times
Reputation: 15038
Doesn't the His-story Channel have a program that claims to figure out these hypothetical battles?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2014, 11:51 PM
 
Location: Maryland about 20 miles NW of DC
6,105 posts, read 5,963,552 times
Reputation: 2479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dub D View Post
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...


Actually the Mongols did not destroy everything in their path because scorched earth provides no food or supplies that an army that travels light but fast needs. The Mongol modis operandi was to show up with an impressive display of armed might and horsemanship and demand submission. It the Mongol target nation or city complied and gave the Mongols the tribute they demanded and even better men, food and material.They were left alone and a Mongol garrison stayed nearby and members of that communities nobility were sent back to Khan Balakh to cement the new part of the Empire and to serve as hostages. Mongol tactics was much like a certain Star Trek opponent, you know the "Resistence is Futile " guys. Now if the Mongol opponent didn't show sufficient submission or worse resisted then ...

An example of a city and a people who chose poorly was the city of Kiev and Kievian Russia a city that ponyed up and survived a frontier (low rent) sort of place called Moscow .

Now the Romans were in a sense a kinder gentler version of the Mongols. When the Romans showed up and made that offer you dare not refuse you took the deal, paid your taxes and when called raised manpower for legions. If you chose poorly you were flattened like the Jews were in 63 AD and your former land was renamed by the Romans, Syria Palestra or Palestine. Now the Romans met their match in Parthia, in upper Saxony and in Scotland. They also weren't to fond of dry wastelands or hot steamy places like upper Nubia .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2014, 12:01 AM
 
4,649 posts, read 4,082,925 times
Reputation: 9010
In the glory days, the Romans with relative ease. Antony alone could put thirty legions of 5000 mean each in the field, backed by an equal number of auxiliaries which would include Balleric slingers that could nearly match the range and power of the Mongols bow, and cavalry to protect his flanks.

I know someone is going to bring up the fact that Anthony technically lost to the Parthians- but it should be noted that this war actually proves my point as Anthony won 18 individual battles. He lost because Median infantry attacked and burned his siege equipment and he could not take Ctesiphon. This would not be and issue against the Mongols as they would not be defining cities. It would be a straight battle, and a good Roman general would follow the formula which Anthony's lieutenant, Publius Ventidius, worked out: legions in testudo formation with well covered flanks and rear, backed by slingers and archers. What is more, as I was implying, Octavian and the other warlords could field comparable armies, and a fine navy. So if they united Rome against them, the Mongols could summon everything they had and still be up against a wall of high quality manpower.

Despite a few disasters, the Romans were spectacularly successful against mounted-archer armies. The sacked/burned the Persian capital five times in history, and could have done it several more except for being bought off. They also defeated various Scythians, Alani, and even in the twilight of the western army, the Huns.

Now again, this is era specific. I am talking about the late Republic through the glory years of the empire. The early armies would not have been able to field enough in the way of cavalry/missile troops, and the later armies just did not have the same perfectly trained infantry once discipline problems set in and Rome began to buy mercenary armies.

A final point- I know that people are going to mention the quality of Mongol armies, which was real, but it should be noted that even in their prime, even during the legendary great invasion of Batu, they were defeated by Europeans in certain battles, especially by Croatian infantry. The Mongols were very used to beating other cavalry, but often had a tough time, in Croatia and Vietnam, for example, against a good infantry. I don't think anyone disputes that the Romans had the very best pre-gunpowder infantry.

Last edited by cachibatches; 05-17-2014 at 12:13 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2014, 12:41 AM
 
4,152 posts, read 4,392,866 times
Reputation: 10031
Being about 1000-1200 years apart in each respective empire at their peaks of power, if pitted against each other with most capable leaders I think the Mongols would win the most battles but the Romans would ultimately win 'the war'.

Nightbird47 touched on the most salient point re: the cultural attitude toward warfare. The Roman attitude toward 'subjugate opponent and then bring them into the fold (based on merit) to learn and in turn lead the conquered areas, I think portends a better espionage ability. They had the mindset to understand their foe - though not always successful, Teutoburg Forest as classic case - Arminius had been tutored and brought up in Roman program for acculturating the youth of outlying areas, knew Roman warfare techniques and laid out perfect setting for guerrilla warfare attack using ideal terrain.

In regards to terrain and ability to win battle is one thing, it is another to hold it and maintain and administrate it. Genghis Kahn was brilliant in intimidating those tribes in regions they swiftly overran and conquered. However, as the nature of the land mass (and form) changed made them adapt and wear down the mobile cavalry advantage as fuel for the herd dwindled, I think the ability to administrate would not hold up as well as Roman's did (again using the example of the best of each's leaders).

The most resourceful, adaptive, and spy savvy, would ultimately win and if the equivalent of Roman Empire had 1000 years more development to be contemporary with Mongols, I'm fairly certain the Roman 'mindset' would ultimately win. I'm guessing they would figure out an adaptive way to engage the cavalry (their espionage efforts would provide them some knowledge in turn leading to better method of how to engage them in battle and cut it down, and once Mongols experienced this they would stay only on terrain they knew they could maneuver freely or be eliminated. Mongols would likely hold more surface area but the Romans would hold more manpower to throw at them.

The beauty of this type of hypothetical question is in getting to how natural borders form between cultures, based upon intrinsic differences in adaptability to maximize and deploy superior force in the environment one knows best.

I'd take Genghis Khan on my fight card much as I'd take Gen Robert E Lee, but think the Romans were much like the Union Forces with the ability to source from a larger base for supplies and manpower. IMO
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2014, 04:54 PM
 
4,454 posts, read 4,588,383 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
The beauty of this type of hypothetical question is in getting to how
natural borders form between cultures
, based upon intrinsic differences
in adaptability to maximize and deploy superior force in the environment one
knows best.
I'd take Genghis Khan on my fight card much as I'd take Gen
Robert E Lee, but think the Romans were much like the Union Forces with the
ability to source from a larger base for supplies and manpower. IMO
You know I'd suggest that the Teutoberg disaster touches this a bit.

Arminius together with the tribes really not only pulled off a great win against the legions but a more important one against Rome's hegemony in 'Europe' at the time. I think it's incredible that by the Teutoberg battle Arminius stifled the might of Rome and its military to go beyond the east of the lower Rhine.

As historians have noted, the Rhineland remained the 'boundary' between the Roman world and the lands to the east all the way into the 5th century. Today ,the Rhineland is the boundary where people east of it speak German, to the west its the Romance languages. Arguably Rome appeared to have been shocked to death at the destruction of the 3 legions. It's almost as like they were like 'deer in headlights' when it came to challenging the Germans on their own territory and that's even bearing in mind Rome's seeming advantage in military organization, skill and leadership and having what could be called a German 'base' by the Rhine. At bottom, it sure seems that Arminius and his ghostly Germanic tribes spooked them real good.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top