Inspired by the MAvsRome topic, Genghis Khan vs Rome.

Sektor31 · Post by **Sektor31** » 2003-08-26 09:51pm

Would the forces of Genghis Khan be able to overtake Rome at its strongest?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-08-26 10:11pm

Not entirely sure of the Mongols tactics and arms but very likely. The discipline and tactics of the Legions made them tough to beat by an mere mob-army.

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2003-08-26 10:19pm

Stormbringer wrote:Not entirely sure of the Mongols tactics and arms but very likely. The discipline and tactics of the Legions made them tough to beat by an mere mob-army.

Their army consisted of their Mongolian horse archers, levies from across their vast empire, and Chinese or Persian engineers for seige weaponry. They were adept at leading their European counterparts into ambushes and they could always outrun an armored foe on their swift ponies, firing arrows at them all the way. With Rome's primarily infantry-based military and cavalry minus the stirrup, the Caesars are doomed. The Mongols will probably exact a hefty tribute but they wouldn't be able to establish any solid empire and after Genghis dies, so does most of their empire. Germanic warriors are far too nomadic to maintain any control over.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-08-26 10:23pm

But how would the Mongols actually fight the legions? They couldn't fight the legions directly, not from what you say. They'd never be able to control Rome or her Empire with out facing them.

And soon enough the Romans and their auxilliary cavalry would have the stirrup once they encounter it. They're wise when it comes to military innovation.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-08-26 10:34pm

Ride in, unleash arrows, ride back, repeat.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-08-26 10:35pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Ride in, unleash arrows, ride back, repeat.

Watch as the Romans simply cover and hold it.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-26 10:40pm

The Mongols would wreck terrible havoc on light auxiliary formations and skirmish lines both.

Rome never had a sterling record vis a vie the Parthians or other Asian riders. Hell, I remember seeing somewhere that a Chinese expedition encountered far-ranging Imperial troops - probably auxiliaries - and then proceeded to win the short but sharp engagement by virtue of the crossbow.

Roman shields probably weren't stern enough to withstand the force of arrows fired with composite bows. Remember that during the Civil Wars, the javelin was still an effective weapon. The tutseubo defense might have been effective for small units moving into siege position; it is doubtful they could have kept the tight-knit formations very long in the field however - which is where the Romans would have had to fight their stand-up battle.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-08-26 11:16pm

Rome never had a sterling record vis a vie the Parthians or other Asian riders.

They did have trouble with them. But they still won, provided discipline was maintained and they were lead well.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2003-08-26 11:28pm

Stormbringer wrote:They did have trouble with them. But they still won, provided discipline was maintained and they were lead well.

The Mongols can advance as rapidly as the Huns, crack fortresses as well as any European army of the middle ages, and are as well disciplined and coordinated as any army could be with their technology.

Most probably, their efforts will center in the Levant, Egypt, and Asia Minor, or the Balkans if they approach via Russia. This is the richest area of the empire, and able to defend itself reasonably well. The Mongols will probably have a few engagements with Roman force. They can't immediately make an impression on them, but they can harry them from dawn till dusk and prevent them from foraging for food or recieving supplies, as well as slaughtering any isolated formation. Through this sort of attrition they can reduce the Romans, who have no real capacity to counter this style of fighting when their enemy is without a base to attack. The Mongols have the strategic initiative and with Genghis Khan in the lead they have the leadership to exploit it.

The Mongols will most likely be unable to penetrate the rougher terrain of Germany, but they will be able to sweep through much of the Eastern Empire and North Africa pretty much at will. They will probably extract a crushing tribute and directly annex some border territories, and within a few decades Rome will have adopted the stirrup and a style of army which can compete with and probably defeat them.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-26 11:34pm

They did have trouble with them. But they still won, provided discipline was maintained and they were lead well.

Good leadership against mounted armies was the exception rather than the rule - and always went hand-in-hand with the presence of Rome's own heavy cavalry.

Even assuming all things are equal however, Mongolian excellence in horsemanship should leave the Roman cavalry decimated, allowing them to sweep in on the infantry - whose discipline is useless in so wide open a space when the enemy is so able to flank them.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2003-08-26 11:37pm

Axis Kast wrote:Even assuming all things are equal however, Mongolian excellence in horsemanship should leave the Roman cavalry decimated, allowing them to sweep in on the infantry - whose discipline is useless in so wide open a space when the enemy is so able to flank them.

Not quite useless. The shield wall would offer a taut defense against barrages of arrows, which would slow the losses considerably, but the Mongols can keep at it all day, while the Roman infantry hiding under their shields will wither as the hours go by. The best bet for the Romans is to concentrate on holding population centers and terrain unfavorable to horses. They're capable of pulling off a victory in such situations, but an open battle in plains or rolling hills would be disastrous.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-27 01:24am

Not quite useless. The shield wall would offer a taut defense against barrages of arrows, which would slow the losses considerably, but the Mongols can keep at it all day, while the Roman infantry hiding under their shields will wither as the hours go by.

Hence my earlier qualification:

"It is doubtful they could have kept the tight-knit formations very long in the field."

I'm also still not convinced that an arrow is any less powerful from a physical point of view than a javelin.

The best bet for the Romans is to concentrate on holding population centers and terrain unfavorable to horses. They're capable of pulling off a victory in such situations, but an open battle in plains or rolling hills would be disastrous.

Population centers can hold out only so long without the surrounding countryside off which to survive. Somebody already brought up the Mongolian expertise at siege warfare as well.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-08-27 01:31am

Axis Kast wrote:I'm also still not convinced that an arrow is any less powerful from a physical point of view than a javelin.

Very few initial javelins injured legionnaires or enemies. The pilum was designed to stick in a shield and weigh it down for either a second volley or hand-to-hand combat. Arrows most likely would not do as well. The lightest estimate I've seen on a Roman pilum is that it weight 5 kilograms. No arrow is that heavy. The composite long bow was also slightly weaker than a standard longbow; its advantage lay in being usable while mounted.

Also, how are we defining the height of Roman power? By size of empire, or by capability of army? I imagine Belisarius might well be able to defeat the Mongols with his cataracts and combined arms tactics of infantry and cavalry.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-27 02:06am

If the pilum stuck, as you say, into shields in the first place, it's a good bet arrows would do the same. It's not the weight of the arrow that's the deciding factor, but the power of the bow.

Cataphracts still need to close the distance - by which time they'd have been peppered thoroughly.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-08-27 02:12am

Axis Kast wrote:If the pilum stuck, as you say, into shields in the first place, it's a good bet arrows would do the same. It's not the weight of the arrow that's the deciding factor, but the power of the bow.

Yes, but a 30 gram arrow will not have the same effect as a 5 kilogram pilum. Just sticking in the shield does precisely jack and shit. It's the extra mass that is the problem.

Cataphracts still need to close the distance - by which time they'd have been peppered thoroughly.

Cataphracts were equipped with bows that outranged the Mongols composite longbows, so the Mongols would need to close the range. That was Belisarius' greatest innovation, using heavily armed and armored cavalry with bows. Like Mongols, they could fire at full gallop, but they also wore armor. Their endurance at speed would be less, but the Mongols must come to them to fight.

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2003-08-27 02:17am

When do the Mongols come? They might be able to set themselves up as the ruling class in Mesopotamia if the time is right.

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2003-08-27 02:20am

Cataphracts were equipped with bows that outranged the Mongols composite longbows, so the Mongols would need to close the range. That was Belisarius' greatest innovation, using heavily armed and armored cavalry with bows. Like Mongols, they could fire at full gallop, but they also wore armor. Their endurance at speed would be less, but the Mongols must come to them to fight.

The Mongols excelled at ambushing armored enemies and they are armed with melee weapons that they are proficient with. It's the lack of heavy armor that would be their problem, but an insignificant one.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-27 02:39am

Yes, but a 30 gram arrow will not have the same effect as a 5 kilogram pilum. Just sticking in the shield does precisely jack and shit. It's the extra mass that is the problem.

After only a handful of vollies, the shields would become absolutely useless. When peppered with enough arrows, the surface will finally pierce. They will be impossible to hold.

Cataphracts were equipped with bows that outranged the Mongols composite longbows, so the Mongols would need to close the range. That was Belisarius' greatest innovation, using heavily armed and armored cavalry with bows. Like Mongols, they could fire at full gallop, but they also wore armor. Their endurance at speed would be less, but the Mongols must come to them to fight.

Interesting. I was unaware that they carried so impressive an armament. Considering precedent, they might even turn the tide of battle. Mongol armies weren't exactly known for their excellent cross-section of troop types, although I have a feeling the Romans would be able to arm far fewer cavalry than the Asian hordes.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2003-08-27 03:27am

The Mongols would probably defeat the Legions. The Mongols were well diciplined and very well equipped with plenty of spare horses and deadly weapons. The Mongol army had a mobility that rivals that of a modern army making it very hard for an infantry force to fight them on favorable terms. The forrests on the Rhein/Danube borders would cripple the Mongols but as long as they stayed in open terrain they would be almost impossible to defeat for the infantry based Legions.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-08-27 04:35am

HemlockGrey wrote:Ride in, unleash arrows, ride back, repeat.

I direct you to the battle of Chalons. Even the Roman Empire at its very worst can deal with these tactics.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-08-27 09:23am

CJvR wrote:The Mongols would probably defeat the Legions. The Mongols were well diciplined and very well equipped with plenty of spare horses and deadly weapons. The Mongol army had a mobility that rivals that of a modern army making it very hard for an infantry force to fight them on favorable terms. The forrests on the Rhein/Danube borders would cripple the Mongols but as long as they stayed in open terrain they would be almost impossible to defeat for the infantry based Legions.

Also, if we assume that the mongols are at their height at their power - wouldn't they also be able to allocate far more troops than the Romans??

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-08-27 09:24am

My money is on the mongols.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2003-08-27 01:26pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: I direct you to the battle of Chalons. Even the Roman Empire at its very worst can deal with these tactics.

Chalons is a very poor example. That "Roman" army was mainly Germanic and more cavalry-heavy than any Roman force before it. The Huns are also more poorly coordinated than the Mongols.

Axis Kast--
A classic Roman shield would be able to hold out against composite bow fire for a very long time. The real danger is that the man under it would become tired and demoralized over time.

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2003-08-27 02:24pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:Ride in, unleash arrows, ride back, repeat.
I direct you to the battle of Chalons. Even the Roman Empire at its very worst can deal with these tactics.

The Mongols are far more organized than the Huns and they outnumber them, too.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-08-27 04:08pm

The real question, is could the Mongols sucessfully destroy the Roman Empire before the Romans match their advantages (Stirrups etc.) And arrange for entire cavalry centric legions?

Hell, if the Romans are really pressed they can always retreat to Britannia, as far as I know the Mongols weren't really known for naval warfare...