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, 01:06 AM
 
1,030 posts, read 1,570,170 times
Reputation: 2416

Advertisements

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

 
Old 05-16-2014, 01:09 AM
 
1,198 posts, read 1,174,296 times
Reputation: 1525
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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2014, 02:14 AM
 
Location: Peterborough, England
472 posts, read 922,374 times
Reputation: 416
Well, given that the Romans were fought to a standstill by a middling power like Parthia, I should think the Mongols win quite easily.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2014, 02:34 AM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,283,093 times
Reputation: 7990
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2014, 04:25 AM
 
Location: Peterborough, England
472 posts, read 922,374 times
Reputation: 416
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2014, 07:10 AM
 
28,896 posts, read 53,969,898 times
Reputation: 46662
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2014, 07:29 AM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,619,383 times
Reputation: 14732
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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2014, 07:51 AM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,921,854 times
Reputation: 15038
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 08:02 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2014, 08:17 AM
 
14,984 posts, read 23,775,922 times
Reputation: 26473
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2014, 08:25 AM
 
3,321 posts, read 7,933,742 times
Reputation: 2851
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...
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