StarDestroyer.Net BBS

A rift is opened in time and space. The Mongol hordes, shortly after ripping through China like the IDF through an Arab swim meet, are transported to the early first century AD, at the height of the mighty Roman Empire, during the reign of the Emperor Augustus.

The Parthians, Germanic barbarians and other enemies of Rome and Mongolia have vanished. The negotiations have ended in a rather messy pile of blood of ash. There can be only one.

Who is the victor?

Given the mongols' hit and run tactics, they should win easily. The Roman legions were much slower, and the mongols can determine time and place of battle, and should be able to easily disengage if necessary. Superior speed and superior maneuverability along with ranged weaponry with better range than the pilum should give the mongol horseman a distinct advantage and the ability to disengage if necessary.

I doubt the Romans would be able to cope very well with a Mongol army. They lived and fought on their horses, using speed in the attack. They were also very ruthless in employing such tactics as driving captured war prisoners ahead of their formations as human shields, or in one battle using cats with lit rushlights tied to their tails and driving them into an enemy city to set it ablaze.

The Romans might have a chance in any situation in which the Mongols are deprived of their mobility, but on an open field they would lose and quite badly, I should think.

This is a slaughter, and you know it, ya bum

The Mongols were a modern army in their own time, it's like asking "What if Nazi Germany is transported back to fight the Romans"

This would be SO easy for the Mongols.
One of their tactics was infecting a city with their diseased, in other words biowarfare.
They shot a bubonic plague victem into a Genoan trade city in the middle east, the disease spread, the Genoans went back to Europe and in 10 years 2/3s were dead!(May be 1/3 can't remember nums right now)

The legionairs would have gotten their ass whooped. If it was I one battle thing where there was a real good Roman commander that knew the field and the field slowed down the Mongols, then the Romans might win. Winning a battle wouldn't have won them the war though so even if this was the case the Mongols would have still won.

The Plague kills about 1/3 of those infected.

The Mongols would take this easily. Though it will take quite a few years to over run the whole of the Empire.

HemlockGrey wrote:A rift is opened in time and space. The Mongol hordes, shortly after ripping through China like the IDF through an Arab swim meet, are transported to the early first century AD, at the height of the mighty Roman Empire, during the reign of the Emperor Augustus.

The Parthians, Germanic barbarians and other enemies of Rome and Mongolia have vanished. The negotiations have ended in a rather messy pile of blood of ash. There can be only one.

Who is the victor?

The Romans. Doesn't any of you remember the Battle of Chalons? Sure, the Mongols are more advanced than the Huns under Attila, but we're talking about the Roman Empire at its height; it only went downhill, and the military didn't make many improvements, certainly not of the type to face horse barbarians.

And yet they beat back Attila at Chalons, a rag-tag mix-matched mass of disorganized remnant legions that were more barbarians than not, noble cavalry without stirrups, and barbarian mercenaries under the Roman Standard. They drove him into his laager and left him cowering under the assault of the General Aetius, one of the last Romans worthy of the name, and just mere decades before the Western Roman Empire was lost.

The Mongols are an impressive and well organized horde, but they're ultimately that. In this case they have the advantage of the stirrup, and the ability to direct charges with the kontos, or their light, flexible lance, into the Roman lines.

However, the Romans were able to withstand fully armoured heavy lancers of the Parthians with their current legionary organization; medium lancers with the addition of stirrups, of course, increases their lethality but does not give them the same shock ability against well-drilled and tightly ordered infantry that armoured cavalry would have, which even then would avail little if the Romans had pikes. They don't, but the Mongols are not heavy armoured lancers, either; even their kontos-bearers have no armour.

As for their archers? That's what shields are for, and the Roman Army of this era has more than enough supporting field artillery, is excellent at building fortifications, and has large numbers of auxilia to compensate for its own lack of long-range missile weapons.

It took the Mongols a long, long time to overrun the Sung Dynasty; who, though they had the advantage of equal technology were a weakened and decaying force dealing with more threats than just their northern flank.

Allowing the full strength of the Roman Field Army to be concentrated against border defence for a single foe, which it will considerably outnumber, and at the Empire's height? The Mongols will be a threat but they will not make headway.

I agree with the Dutchess, the Mongol hoards may be mobile but the Romans had a advantage with its industial and military edge. Mobility was something that the Romans never did well but in the end the Romans had the resupply line to susstain a war (at their heigth) with the Mongals in their own terf.

The Mongols depended on decimating their enemy from a distance. From what I've read, their ability to fight close-in was limited. Unfortunately for them, the Roman legion is well-equipped to withstand massed attack by archers. Against a legion in the "turtle" formation (tightly packed, front rank holding their shields up while the back ranks lifted their shields over their heads and interlocked them, forming a wall and a roof over the entire formation), horse archers are of limited mobility. That leaves the lancers, and the Romans could absorb heavy cavalry charges. The stirrup gives the Mongols an advantage over the Romans' contemporary enemies, but not enough to counter what was, pound for pound, the best infantry force the world would ever know.

The Mongols' advantage is that the Romans can't effectively pursue them, and their reconnisance is more than good enought to prevent a Roman army from sneaking up on them and pouncing on them while they're encamped. The Mongols would be able to sieze territory in places like Gaul simply because they got there before the Romans did, and I have no more faith in Roman peasant militias than I do in anyone else's against the Mongols. The best bet for the Romans would be to have the army in place to protect important assets, and wait until winter to attack the Mongols while they're fattening up their horses for the spring campaign.

In the end, logistics and attrition get the Mongols. Thousands are dead on both sides, and thousands more Roman civilians have suffered at the hands of the barbarians. On the bright side, the surviving Mongols (those who aren't put to work in the lead mines), would make excellent cavalry auxillaries for when His Imperial Majesty decides its time to give those hated Parthians/Germans/Picts/Arabs/Abysinnians/Whoever a good thumping.

The Mongols were tough, but they had weaknesses. Like modern armoured divisions, they had very high resource requirements. They needed vast amounts of grazing land for their horses, for example, which limited their flexibility of movement. And as previously noted, the Romans at their peak were BMF's and had several methods for dealing with massed archer attacks.

As well, every Roman soldier carried two pallisades on the march for setting up camp.

These could easily be placed ahead of them as a wall of pikes.

Further, I do not remember the Mongols having particularly good siege equipment, and, as we all know, Roman forces built a new fortress every single night.

HemlockGrey wrote:Further, I do not remember the Mongols having particularly good siege equipment, and, as we all know, Roman forces built a new fortress every single night.

Well the Mongols were rather ingenious about seige warfare however if they are attacking into Germany over the Rhine (the most likely point of contact assumign the Romans had continued to expand after not losing in the Teutonburg) then you are dealing with rolling hills and wooded terrian that highly favors the infantry formations of the Romans.

Furthermore the Mongols, as has been noted, lacked any heavy fighting forces with which to smash their opponents when they cannot be attacked at range. During the later invasion of Europe (cut short by the death of the Kahn) the heavy calvary of the medievil armies were highly successful in close quarters engagements with the Mongols, it was only the lack of a good supporting infantry and a means to resist the Mongol archers that doomed those knights.

I think the Romans would eventually kill off the Mongols. I just don't buy that the Romans wouldn't be able to hold up against calvary forces with their massive legions, fortifications, their own calvaries, siege weapons, tactics, etc. Their naval forces would be virtually immune to the Mongols, due to the fact the Mongols had no navy of their own to stop hundreds of ships from making amphibious landings. They could use their navy to transport their soldiers all around the Mediterranean nations at will and the Mongols would have no means to stop them at all.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: The Mongols are an impressive and well organized horde, but they're ultimately that. In this case they have the advantage of the stirrup, and the ability to direct charges with the kontos, or their light, flexible lance, into the Roman lines.

The Mongols fight on an organized level that defies comparison with the Huns. Treating them as just more simple barbarians is an oversimplification.

As for their archers? That's what shields are for, and the Roman Army of this era has more than enough supporting field artillery, is excellent at building fortifications, and has large numbers of auxilia to compensate for its own lack of long-range missile weapons.

These auxilia, unlike the Roman Legionnaires, would be terribly vulnerable to Mongol archery. Also being the only formation in the Roman armies capable of inflicting damage on the Mongols, they would be the first to be targetted.

It took the Mongols a long, long time to overrun the Sung Dynasty; who, though they had the advantage of equal technology were a weakened and decaying force dealing with more threats than just their northern flank.

Oh, and Marina, let's just not mention the fact that the Sung outnumbered them by an massive amount, and most definitely had superior technology.

Allowing the full strength of the Roman Field Army to be concentrated against border defence for a single foe, which it will considerably outnumber, and at the Empire's height? The Mongols will be a threat but they will not make headway.

The problem that the Romans have is that they will probably never actually come to grips with the Mongols. The Mongols will be able to evade any force strong enough to threaten them, and raid the interior of the Empire at will. The Mongols will probably ravage the unfortified towns that make up the interior of the Empire, leading to the collapse of government authority. Then, Genghis Khan will more than likely realize the time and expense it would take to actually destroy the Romans, and then settle back onto a convenient plain and recieve a large yearly tribute.

Pablo Sanchez wrote:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: The Mongols are an impressive and well organized horde, but they're ultimately that. In this case they have the advantage of the stirrup, and the ability to direct charges with the kontos, or their light, flexible lance, into the Roman lines.

The Mongols fight on an organized level that defies comparison with the Huns. Treating them as just more simple barbarians is an oversimplification.

They fight in well controlled units but it gives them little organizational advatnage over the Roman legions. Both were well controlled and, in the time of Augusus or Tiberius, very able led.

As for their archers? That's what shields are for, and the Roman Army of this era has more than enough supporting field artillery, is excellent at building fortifications, and has large numbers of auxilia to compensate for its own lack of long-range missile weapons.

These auxilia, unlike the Roman Legionnaires, would be terribly vulnerable to Mongol archery. Also being the only formation in the Roman armies capable of inflicting damage on the Mongols, they would be the first to be targetted.

They also were just as fast as the mongol archers and could have been used on the flanks to engage the mongols on the attack against the main body. Furthermore they are still better armored than the mongols and are nto as vulnerable as you seem to suggest. Their casualties would, undoubtably, be greater than those of the main cohorts but this does nto mean they couldnto effectively engage and disrupt the Mongols both in battle and in their scouting efforts.

It took the Mongols a long, long time to overrun the Sung Dynasty; who, though they had the advantage of equal technology were a weakened and decaying force dealing with more threats than just their northern flank.

Oh, and Marina, let's just not mention the fact that the Sung outnumbered them by an massive amount, and most definitely had superior technology.

We don't mention it because they were being assaulted on all flanks, they held the Mongols off for a long time with only a portion of their total strength.

Allowing the full strength of the Roman Field Army to be concentrated against border defence for a single foe, which it will considerably outnumber, and at the Empire's height? The Mongols will be a threat but they will not make headway.

The problem that the Romans have is that they will probably never actually come to grips with the Mongols. The Mongols will be able to evade any force strong enough to threaten them, and raid the interior of the Empire at will. The Mongols will probably ravage the unfortified towns that make up the interior of the Empire, leading to the collapse of government authority. Then, Genghis Khan will more than likely realize the time and expense it would take to actually destroy the Romans, and then settle back onto a convenient plain and recieve a large yearly tribute.

1) Actually penetrating to the interior of the Empire requires crossing terrian that will be MORE difficult for the Mongols than for even the foot infantry of Rome. Furthermore the road system of Rome will enable quick response and bring fighting troops into positions to block the Mongols where they are not in sufficient force and delay them where they are.

2) There really is no such thing as an unforitfied Roman town, certianly there were towns that were unforitfied but these were remnants of the cpatured civilizaitons. The true towns of the empire were universally walled and well defended cities.

3) You assume that the omnipresent Roman Empire would not know exactly where the Mongols were moving within their own terriotry? The great stregnth of Rome lies in that, at the time, its subjects where intensely loyal due to their means of conquest and scouting efforts for the Romans would have been simple while the Mongols would have been hindered at every turn.

CmdrWilkens wrote:They fight in well controlled units but it gives them little organizational advatnage over the Roman legions. Both were well controlled and, in the time of Augusus or Tiberius, very able led.

Neither side has a clear advantage here. I was just pointing out that the Mongols are not the Huns.

They also were just as fast as the mongol archers and could have been used on the flanks to engage the mongols on the attack against the main body. Furthermore they are still better armored than the mongols and are nto as vulnerable as you seem to suggest. Their casualties would, undoubtably, be greater than those of the main cohorts but this does nto mean they couldnto effectively engage and disrupt the Mongols both in battle and in their scouting efforts.

No, Roman archery auxillia would be far slower than the Mongols. In case you forgot: All Mongols fight from horseback, and all Mongols are archers first, cavalrymen second. The Roman auxillia would cause a handful of casualties, at best.

We don't mention it because they were being assaulted on all flanks, they held the Mongols off for a long time with only a portion of their total strength.

This portion being far larger than the Mongol army.

1) Actually penetrating to the interior of the Empire requires crossing terrian that will be MORE difficult for the Mongols than for even the foot infantry of Rome. Furthermore the road system of Rome will enable quick response and bring fighting troops into positions to block the Mongols where they are not in sufficient force and delay them where they are.

The problem with this theory is threefold:

A) The terrain is not that bad. Since Germany has been emptied by the terms of the scenario, the Mongols can move into Gaul quite easily.

B) The Mongols can also use the roads, and are more capable than the legions of leaving them when opposed.

C) Even with the roads, the Mongols are far faster than anything the Romans have ever even heard of.

2) There really is no such thing as an unforitfied Roman town, certianly there were towns that were unforitfied but these were remnants of the cpatured civilizaitons. The true towns of the empire were universally walled and well defended cities.

According to Keegan's History of Warfare, the only substantial fortifications in the Roman Empire were those on their borders and those around Rome. This only changed after the Goths invaded.

3) You assume that the omnipresent Roman Empire would not know exactly where the Mongols were moving within their own terriotry? The great stregnth of Rome lies in that, at the time, its subjects where intensely loyal due to their means of conquest and scouting efforts for the Romans would have been simple while the Mongols would have been hindered at every turn.

Even if the Romans know where the Mongols are, they still have to cope with an army that maintains the all-time daily speed record, even to this very day. There is also the fact that when the Mongols do break through into the interior, the loyalty of that populace will be nearly impossible to maintain. One of the promises of an Empire such as Rome is that they will protect their citizen from outside threat. They are incapable of doing so in vast swaths of the Empire.

It bears repeating that the Mongols have a nearly insurmountable strategic advantage in this scenario. As they had with all their real-life enemies, they have the ability to pick when and where they would fight their enemy. The Romans would be hard-pressed to actually take the battle to the Mongols.

But, actually taking the Roman Empire is beyond their abilities. They will probably just raid whatever they can get their hands on, Rome will promise a yearly tribute, and the Mongols will leave only a small force to collect this tribute, the rest of them returning to the east. The Romans might find the courage to crush this small horde within a few years, which would probably be within their capabilities.

No, Roman archery auxillia would be far slower than the Mongols. In case you forgot: All Mongols fight from horseback, and all Mongols are archers first, cavalrymen second. The Roman auxillia would cause a handful of casualties, at best.

What about the Roman cavalry auxillia? The Gallic provinicials and such? If they can close with the Mongols, they -will- inflict heavy casualties.

A) The terrain is not that bad. Since Germany has been emptied by the terms of the scenario, the Mongols can move into Gaul quite easily.

'Emptied' does not mean 'all the forests and hills are gone'.

B) The Mongols can also use the roads, and are more capable than the legions of leaving them when opposed.

This does not change the fact that the legions can move about the Empire with incredible speed for an infantry force.

According to Keegan's History of Warfare, the only substantial fortifications in the Roman Empire were those on their borders and those around Rome. This only changed after the Goths invaded.

And according to Julius Caesar's Commentaries, the legions built fortifications wherever they slept every night.

HemlockGrey wrote:What about the Roman cavalry auxillia? The Gallic provinicials and such? If they can close with the Mongols, they -will- inflict heavy casualties.

Those guys? The only advantage they have is armor. That's it. They are slower, less well armed, are inferior horsemen, and they will be horribly outnumbered.

'Emptied' does not mean 'all the forests and hills are gone'.

:rolleyes:

Yes, that's really going to inflict some casualties. The ONLY difficulty the Mongols will have in crossing Germania will be the lack of good grazing.

This does not change the fact that the legions can move about the Empire with incredible speed for an infantry force.

No it doesn't change it. But it does render the fact largely moot.

And according to Julius Caesar's Commentaries, the legions built fortifications wherever they slept every night.

...

Was I talking about the legions? NO! I was talkling about the towns.

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:I think the Romans would eventually kill off the Mongols. I just don't buy that the Romans wouldn't be able to hold up against calvary forces with their massive legions, fortifications, their own calvaries, siege weapons, tactics, etc. Their naval forces would be virtually immune to the Mongols, due to the fact the Mongols had no navy of their own to stop hundreds of ships from making amphibious landings. They could use their navy to transport their soldiers all around the Mediterranean nations at will and the Mongols would have no means to stop them at all.

No navy? What are you talking about? They invaded Japan, remember?

Those guys? The only advantage they have is armor. That's it. They are slower, less well armed, are inferior horsemen, and they will be horribly outnumbered.

And, IF they can close, they will do nasty things to Mongol horsemen.

Yes, that's really going to inflict some casualties. The ONLY difficulty the Mongols will have in crossing Germania will be the lack of good grazing.

What's to prevent the Romans from crossing the Rhine and fighting delaying actions, taking advantage of the Mongol ineffectiveness in wooded regions?

Was I talking about the legions? NO! I was talkling about the towns.

Oh, you were. Regardless, the 'towns' do not matter much. The heart of Rome is in it's cities-it's heavily fortified cities, surrounded by towns that can easily be evacuated. Mongols need food. Where will they get it?

And you're disregarding the other provinces. Mongol horsemen will never touch Greece or Africa and they will never make

And, IF they can close, they will do nasty things to Mongol horsemen.

That's a mighty big IF ya got there

HemlockGrey wrote:What's to prevent the Romans from crossing the Rhine and fighting delaying actions, taking advantage of the Mongol ineffectiveness in wooded regions?

Mongol speed of advance, and Roman total lack of intelligence in that area.

Oh, you were. Regardless, the 'towns' do not matter much. The heart of Rome is in it's cities-it's heavily fortified cities, surrounded by towns that can easily be evacuated. Mongols need food. Where will they get it?

There are only a handful of heavily fortified cities in the Roman interior, as of 100 A.D. Rome is the only one of note. The rest of the Empire was never threatened by destruction any time between the Punic Wars and the Gothic Invasions, so they didn't feel the need to fortify. Even during the great civil wars, they weren't truly in danger. This is one of the reasons that there was a general panic after Teutoburger Wald. There was nothing more substantial than inconvenient terrain once the border was breached, so when the largest military formation in Germania was obliterated, the people collectively shit themselves.

Why do you think the Goths had it so easy, after they dispersed the Romans sent to oppose them? Because there was nothing on that side of the border to slow them down.

And where do you get the idea that pastoral nomads like the Mongols need to break into cities for food? All actual food in those days, as today, is produced in the countryside. Armies foraged for the larger part of their food from time immemorial up until the 1850s!

And you're disregarding the other provinces. Mongol horsemen will never touch Greece or Africa and they will never make

The Mongols would be able to cross the Carpathians if they wanted, and sack the Balkans. Possessing no major navy, they won't be able to cross the waterways.

I'd say that only Africa and Anatolia are really safe from the Mongols. Italy is, to a lesser extent.

HemlockGrey wrote:And, IF they can close, they will do nasty things to Mongol horsemen.

As said before, that's a big if. And anyway, we're not talking about medieval cavalry, here! They're only lightly armored, and their lack of stirrups makes it hard to use their weapons.