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.
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.
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...
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.