The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I think one is forgetting the fact that half the military force of the Roman empire were in the auxilia, and in the Eastern provinces in particular, these were heavily drawn from cavalry forces. Besides that, the Romans could and did frequently hire large forces of Arab cavalry for campaigns in Persia; and in such a scenario as this there would probably be fleeing Parthians to add to the ranks. Historically the one place the Mongols were checked was in Syria, by an army coming up from Egypt.
An army which outnumbered them and was composed entirely of highly trained and motivated cavalry. The Roman cavalry in the theatre are fickle and in any case far less effective than the Mongols. Recall that Genghis slaughtered the Khwarezmian army, which was very large and had significant cavalry elements including Cataphract-style formations. Whatever cavalry the Romans can raise will be no match for the Mongols and are the sort that will desert at the first opportunity.
Perhaps the question should be if a Mongol force coming down through Iran can succeed in taking the breadbasket of the Empire--Aegyptus and North Africa. They would have to advance down through Palestine against fortresses and what would certainly be a strong opposition. The terrain does not favour them; it is not particularly high, but it is rugged and unpleasant in the extreme, especially for cavalry.
The Mongols will do what they generally did in China and bypass such strongpoints on their way to grazing and populated areas. The Romans don't have the mobility to force an engagement, except possibly at river crossings, in which case the Mongols are likely to anticipate the attempt and try to find another route.
They will do fine on the Plain of Syria--it was made for a cavalry engagement, one might say--but if they try to turn south, the ground will be decidedly unpleasant. Even in Anatolia, look at how long the Byzantines held the coasts against the Turks...
The Byzantines had a more active navy, stronger fortifications, and an army which was designed specifically to counter steppe cavalry.
Also, though the stirrup provides obvious advantages to a lancer, has anyone quantified the advantages it gives to horse-archers over the Roman-style four-horned saddle, which was certainly more stable than riding bareback or something..?
The stirrups make it possible to fire at the gallop without major difficulty, something which is very hard without them. They also give a major advantage in a mounted melee, the Mongols could shatter the Arabs in a hand-to-hand engagement.
That is one thing to consider, at any rate. I don't think the Mongols could successfully assault a Roman encampment, which will be built every night; the danger to a Roman field army is on the march.
The Romans have to break ranks to set up their encampments. The Mongols can move very quickly.
