Mongol Empire vs Byzantine Empire

Super-Gagme · Post by **Super-Gagme** » 2004-01-26 12:25pm

Through some twist of fate/god/Q/whatever in Europe it is the Byzantine(Roman) Empire at the height of Justinian I's rule. All rebellion is magically dissolved throughout the duration of this strange encounter as well as intrigue of court and religious issues.

VS

The Mongol Empire at the height of Kublai Khans rule. They are well aware of this new Europe as they were with the original Europe when they started plans for invasion. They have the same spies throughout the lands.

The Mongols are the invaders.

How does it pan out? Oh by the way Europe has the same wonder and mysterious idea of the Mongols about being invincible/monsters/magical etc.

Super-Gagme · Post by **Super-Gagme** » 2004-01-26 02:00pm

Oh come on! Nobody?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-01-26 02:50pm

the mongol horde takes it, easily. they would have succeeded in conquering nearly all of europe had their leader not died in his tent. they have combat tactics that honestly most of europe had never seen or used, including shooting arrows from horseback. combined with their swift surgical strikes i doubt the romans would have much that could stand up against them.

Super-Gagme · Post by **Super-Gagme** » 2004-01-26 02:52pm

Wasn't the standing army for the Romans at the time 500,000 strong? The Mongols would have had a problem being outnumbered, but I guess that never stopped them in the past.

The Aliens · Post by **The Aliens** » 2004-01-26 02:54pm

Those 500 000 were spread out all through Europe though, the Mongols were fiarly concentrated. If you take the Mongols as a unified fighting force rather than a collection of tribes as they were when Genghis Khan died, they would flatten Rome.

Bertie Wooster · Post by **Bertie Wooster** » 2004-01-26 02:56pm

The Mongols in the 1200s succeeded so well in the occident and the levant because they weren't facing any first rate powers until the Mamelukes, who defeated them.

I say the Byzantines would have wooped their ass. The Byzantines utilized armored horse archers, as well as light infantry who used longer-ranged bows than the mongols could have used. The Byzantines weren't idiots like the templars, and were well versed in dealing with the tactics of steppe horse archers like the mongols.

Plus, if it was the time of Justinian, the Byzantines would have two excellent generals, Narses and Belisarius. Belisarius also utilized Hunnish cavalry, so it would have been pretty interesting - Huns vs Mongols

.

Super-Gagme · Post by **Super-Gagme** » 2004-01-26 03:04pm

The Aliens wrote:Those 500 000 were spread out all through Europe though, the Mongols were fiarly concentrated. If you take the Mongols as a unified fighting force rather than a collection of tribes as they were when Genghis Khan died, they would flatten Rome.

Actually the Mongols maintained their Empire and even grew more after Genghis died. He started the expansion but it continued without him.

The Aliens · Post by **The Aliens** » 2004-01-26 03:05pm

The Mongols ruined China, and they were fairly powerful at the time. Mongol Horde would probably never have dropped Poland if Genghis Khan hadn't have died, because they used tactics like guerilla warfare and scorched earth policies that the rest of the world hadn't seen before. Not to mention that if the Horde is invading Rome, then they have most of their industrial capacity seperated from the theatre of war by the Urals and thousands of miles of empty space, amking it almost impossible for the Byzantines to break down supply lines past a certain point.

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2004-01-26 03:07pm

Bertie Wooster wrote: The Byzantines weren't idiots like the templars, and were well versed in dealing with the tactics of steppe horse archers like the mongols.

Could you clarify what you're refering too? My crusader history is a little weak in a few areas including the Templars.[/quote]

Super-Gagme · Post by **Super-Gagme** » 2004-01-26 03:12pm

The Aliens wrote:The Mongols ruined China, and they were fairly powerful at the time. Mongol Horde would probably never have dropped Poland if Genghis Khan hadn't have died, because they used tactics like guerilla warfare and scorched earth policies that the rest of the world hadn't seen before. Not to mention that if the Horde is invading Rome, then they have most of their industrial capacity seperated from the theatre of war by the Urals and thousands of miles of empty space, amking it almost impossible for the Byzantines to break down supply lines past a certain point.

Where have you been reading about Mongols? The Mongols didn't "ruin" China they built an Empire with it. Brought culture and more trade. The Mongols created the first postal system and built defense forts along trade routes to promote free trade.

Second they left poland because Ogadei Khan died, not Genghis. Genghis died MANY years before, even before they took China and began expanding into Europe.

You have been grossly mis-informed about the Mongols.

The Aliens · Post by **The Aliens** » 2004-01-26 03:15pm

*cough*...my World History textbook appears to be non-functional- I withdraw my statements dealing with China and Poland.

I maintain that becuase they were invading Rome and not the other way around, they are at an advantage in that their industrial base (blacksmiths, stables, fletchers) are seperated from Rome by a long way. This means that the Romans will have difficulty assaulting the supply chains past a certain point- the postal system (three horses for each rider, they would arrive at a station and change horses, correct?) allows the Mongols to more efficiently give and respond to orders.

Super-Gagme · Post by **Super-Gagme** » 2004-01-26 03:23pm

The Aliens wrote:I maintain that becuase they were invading Rome and not the other way around, they are at an advantage in that their industrial base (blacksmiths, stables, fletchers) are seperated from Rome by a long way. This means that the Romans will have difficulty assaulting the supply chains past a certain point- the postal system (three horses for each rider, they would arrive at a station and change horses, correct?) allows the Mongols to more efficiently give and respond to orders.

There is also the advantage that the army supplied itself. They lived off their horses which in turn lived off the land. The armies main supplies were within itself which would make any kind of attempt at cutting them off very useless

Bertie Wooster · Post by **Bertie Wooster** » 2004-01-26 03:41pm

Worlds Spanner wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote: The Byzantines weren't idiots like the templars, and were well versed in dealing with the tactics of steppe horse archers like the mongols.
Could you clarify what you're refering too? My crusader history is a little weak in a few areas including the Templars.

[/quote]

I'm referring to the battle of Liegnitz, which was on April 5, 1241. The Mongols defeated a force of about 20,000, mostly polish light cavalry but also contingents of Teutonic knight, led by the Duke of Breslau and Poppo of Osternia, the "Landmaster" of the Teotonic knights. Basically, the Poles and Germans got outflanked, and the horse archery on the flanks became so unbearable that they fell into disorder and retreated. It was in the retreat that the Europeans got slaughtered.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-01-27 03:41am

If I was in charge the Mongols would be put to flight, just like I did in Medieval

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-01-27 03:45am

The Mongolian composite bows were the best of their time. What's this about the Byzantines having better?

But still, horse archery tactics or not, I would loooove to see the Mongols try to take Constantinople.

Think Minas Tirith only bigger and with water on three sides.

Super-Gagme · Post by **Super-Gagme** » 2004-01-27 09:28am

Actually they might just starve it out....except it would have sea access and possibly supplies. Hmmm..

Bertie Wooster · Post by **Bertie Wooster** » 2004-01-27 10:52am

Rogue 9 wrote:The Mongolian composite bows were the best of their time. What's this about the Byzantines having better?

But still, horse archery tactics or not, I would loooove to see the Mongols try to take Constantinople. Think Minas Tirith only bigger and with water on three sides.

The Byzantines used oriental composite bows as well. Their military by the time of Justinian was quite heavily influenced by the armored horse archer tactics of the Parthians/Persians and like I said before, Belisarius utilized Hunnish cavalry in his forces. The Psiloi (light infantry) used larger bows than could be used by the cavalry. There was never an issue of tartar/turk/patzinak/avar/persian/saracen horse-archers outranging their byzantine counterparts in battle.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-01-27 01:01pm

Well, either they did outrange almost everyone in the world, or my World Civ teacher's on crack. *Thinks about the professor in question.* Actually, its pretty likely that he's on crack. Never mind.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-01-28 06:42pm

Bertie Wooster wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:The Mongolian composite bows were the best of their time. What's this about the Byzantines having better?

But still, horse archery tactics or not, I would loooove to see the Mongols try to take Constantinople. Think Minas Tirith only bigger and with water on three sides.
The Byzantines used oriental composite bows as well. Their military by the time of Justinian was quite heavily influenced by the armored horse archer tactics of the Parthians/Persians and like I said before, Belisarius utilized Hunnish cavalry in his forces. The Psiloi (light infantry) used larger bows than could be used by the cavalry. There was never an issue of tartar/turk/patzinak/avar/persian/saracen horse-archers outranging their byzantine counterparts in battle.

The kataphraktoi (cataphracts) were the Byzantine horse archers, and predecessor to the Medieval knight. The cataphract wore maile, as did his horse; the horse would also often have plate added to add to its defense. The cataphract was armed with a composite bow, lance, and either sword or mace. Their typical mode of combat was to use the bow to weaken the enemy force, then advance at the trot in formation with lance. Indeed, the cataphracts was developed specifically to battle horse archers, due to the weakness of the legion against such foes. The horse used by the cataphracts was the Parthian, whose bloodstock became the Andalusian and the Lusitano. Those breeds were bloodstock for the Quarterhorse, Appaloosa, and Tigerhorse*. The Thoroughbred may also be a descendany of the Parthian. It can be seen from the characteristics of those horses that the Parthian was a large, fast horse. Indeed, it could outrun the small Spanish horses traditionally used for Roman light cavalry (although it was almost definitely slower once the armor was added).

As was also said, Belisarius was one of the most brilliant generals ever born. He was a psychological warrior, who analyzed his enemy and figured ways to defeat them. His armies were always outnumbered, yet lost only once, at Rome (after reconquering it from the Goths).

I feel the Romans actually have a chance at this one. They may lose a battle or two to the Mongols' false retreat, but not if they're under Belisarius, who kept a tight rein on his men to prevent ambushes. Their cavalry is at least equal to the Mongols in ranged combat and far superior in close combat. I don't see any way the Mongols can win without a immensely larger army, one which would likely be unsustainable from the land and require long supply lines over high mountains.

*the now extinct Neapolitan was also a Parthian descendant. The famous Lippizaner stallions are crossbreeds of the Neapolitan.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-01-29 02:54am

That was very informative, thanks for that.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-01-29 06:01pm

No problem. I've been doing research on the cataphracts after reading the Drake/Flint Belisarius series, trying to figure out what was accurate and what was BS from the novels. The horse stuff I ran across the day before I posted, having just run across it while doing research for a friend of mine who's a show rider and teaches riding.

Bertie Wooster · Post by **Bertie Wooster** » 2004-01-29 06:17pm

The Dark wrote:No problem. I've been doing research on the cataphracts after reading the Drake/Flint Belisarius series, trying to figure out what was accurate and what was BS from the novels. The horse stuff I ran across the day before I posted, having just run across it while doing research for a friend of mine who's a show rider and teaches riding.

Is the Drake/Flint Belisarius series any good? Who is the author? I'm pretty interested in byzantine military history but haven't ever read any historical novels about it.

Shortie · Post by **Shortie** » 2004-01-29 07:51pm

Bertie Wooster wrote:
The Dark wrote:No problem. I've been doing research on the cataphracts after reading the Drake/Flint Belisarius series, trying to figure out what was accurate and what was BS from the novels. The horse stuff I ran across the day before I posted, having just run across it while doing research for a friend of mine who's a show rider and teaches riding.
Is the Drake/Flint Belisarius series any good? Who is the author? I'm pretty interested in byzantine military history but haven't ever read any historical novels about it.

Mostly Eric Flint with some outline from David Drake I think, They're okay, but not great. I think you can check out the first one or two on the Baen Free Library. Somewhere between alternate history and fantasy.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-01-29 08:39pm

The Dark wrote:I feel the Romans actually have a chance at this one. They may lose a battle or two to the Mongols' false retreat, but not if they're under Belisarius, who kept a tight rein on his men to prevent ambushes. Their cavalry is at least equal to the Mongols in ranged combat and far superior in close combat. I don't see any way the Mongols can win without a immensely larger army, one which would likely be unsustainable from the land and require long supply lines over high mountains.

The Byzantines have the leadership, skills, and tactics to win it, but they don't have the numbers. The Mongol attack will probably come from Persia, and will thus meet Byzantine armies first in Syria. Any armies that the Byzantines put in their way at this stage will be lost, because the Byzantines at best can muster 50,000 or so men, mainly infantry, and the Mongols can throw 120,000 or more horsemen. In the era we're talking about, there is enough forage in those areas to support a horse army of that size, and in fact the Muslim were able to overrun Egypt and Syria with little more than lots of horses and fanatical resolve.

Belisarius (aka the best general EVER) as a factor might not even come into play, as Justinian never trusted him with more than 10,000 men at a time--and the Mongol generals are smart enough that he won't be pulling any Tricamerons on them. A fighting retreat might be possible, but unless he gets across the Taurus mountains into Anatolia he'll eventually be cornered and killed.

The Byzantines don't have enough forces ready to prevent the Mongols from taking Syria, Egypt, and North Africa (these areas were not dessicated at the time and offered good opportunities for horse armies--the Vandals used such troops exclusively, and they had a shitload of them). Perhaps they'll be able to mobilize their reserves and use the rough terrain of the Caucasus and Eastern Asia Minor to hold them off. If Belisarius gets in command, they might even stabilize the border.

...

Of course, this whole scenario is voided if the Mongols decide to play it really tricky and send half their army via the Persia-Syria road and the other half via the Ukraine-Bulgaria road. The Byzantines would then be outnumbered at two ends of the Empire, forcing them to disperse their forces, and just about everything except Constantinople would fall. I don't see any way for the Mongols to starve that city out, really. It's pretty much impossible to take the son-of-a-bitch without gunpowder artillery

If the Byzantines had as many soldiers as the Mongols, or even half as many, they would win. But they're running their military machine on a post-Roman "dark age" economy, and they can't support enough troops to carry the day.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-01-29 09:34pm

How exactly did the Empire levy and equip troops in this era? I know that from the reign of Heraclius forward the territories were organized into feudal themes which had to supply X number of troops, but how did they do it in the Justinian era?