Who would win between the Roman Empire and the Mongol Empire?

[mwruckman]

Originally Posted by travric

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.

The other thing that convinced the Romans to stop at the Rhine and not go on tho the Elbe, Oder or Vistula Rivers and add central and Eastern Europe to the Empire even though it would have shortended to their line of defense and allowed the use of the Carpathian Mountains as a natural barrier. was the fact that Rome would have had to change their farming techniques , grow crops more suited to the colder wetter conditions and shorter growing seasons and adopt warmer clothing and ways to heat their houses which were needed in the warmer "Mediterranean "climate of Italy or other places under Roman control. This is why Rome did not add Scotland Ireland, or Scandinavia to the Pax Roma.

[travric]

^ Interesting point. Setting up 'shop' there would show many difficulties. If 'subjugation' of the tribes would be the goal, Rome no doubt would have a hard time of it. And from Tacitus it was his opinion that it wasn't worth because a great deal of time and effort would have to be expended in that direction.

[Felix C]

FYI, I just received the hard copy catalog today and this title is there:
ARMS AND ARMOUR OF THE IMPERIAL ROMAN SOLDIERFrom Marius to Commodus - Naval & Military Press

Perhaps of interest to some folks here.

[BlackShoe]

Perhaps we should first determine which was the more effective cavalry, the Parthian or the Mongol. Would the Romans have learned the lessons of Carrhae, or would the legions have been once again overwhelmed by heavy sustained arrow fire from skilled disiplined horse archers?

[cachibatches]

Originally Posted by BlackShoe

Perhaps we should first determine which was the more effective cavalry, the Parthian or the Mongol. Would the Romans have learned the lessons of Carrhae, or would the legions have been once again overwhelmed by heavy sustained arrow fire from skilled disiplined horse archers?

Can't emphasis this enough- they did learn the lessons of Carrhae. Cassias Longinus defeated a Parthian army with the remnants of the army at Carrhae...did you know that?

Publius Ventidius defeated three Parthian armies and killed their three best generals, including the crowned prince. In his losing campaign, Antonius defeated the Parthians in 16 battles. The Parthians were beaten by Corbulo, Advidius Cassius, Trajan and Septimus Severus. Under Trajan, provinces were carved out of Armenia, Mesopotamia and Assyria which were handed back by Hadrian.

The Romans sacked and burned the Ctesiphon 3 times, and 2 more in the Byzantine era, and could have taken it another three times except for being paid off. The number of times the Persians, Parthian or Sassanid, took Rome or Constantinople...0. They were rarely even able to threaten Constantinople and certainly not Rome.

It is debatable whether there were even "lessons" to learn. Crassus, and experienced military man, took with him thousands of Arab cavalry that deserted him at the last minute in a set up. It was indeed a mistake to go on without them, but being overconfident is different than being tactically deficient.

As for which cavalry was better- the Mongols, but they are comparable in tactics and ability and it was the Persian ability to field tough INFANTRY that often saved them, such as against Antonius. The Mongols had no such ability and when they had to fight as infantry, as in Croatia, Viet Nam or the coasts of Japan, they basically were sub-par and lost or won due to numbers.