Plus they did not have the stirrups back then. A social similarity between the Han Dynasty and the Roman Empire was that they both had a common currency. They reached the Eastern Europe later. Roman Legionaires carried wooden spikes and caltrops as part of thier feild kit. The Romans were masters at seiges - and imho would have bled the Mongols dryHa! Sorry if I seem a bit offensive, buts it not quite the best situation for me, and my posts somewhat reflect it I think your point? The expansionary drive of the leaders led to the adoption of the conquest approach as a way of expanding their territories.
Theyre like the Patriots of the ancient world. To submit a battle, click the Goku vs Superman or Doom vs Vader button above. We know they did fight off 6000 with their 400 at one point in melee. Huns kick Romans bad and Mongols were far more deadly than Huns. I don't know how large the roman army was but attila's army was estimated at over 600,000.
Their development was steady and with the right leader, both civilizations were able to reach a Golden Age. The front ranks will most likely go down cuasig following ranks to trample and probalby trip over them breaking the peak momentum of the charge. In the intervening thousand years that separate Genghis Khan from Julius Caeser, the quality and size of horses radically changed. Originally posted by Shortie Read the desription on that link again. The Seljuks invaded the , part of the Mongol Empire. Using their fighting skills they conquered the Middle Easy, Song China, eastern Europe, and much of Southeast Asia. The general in the idle gatehouse sent reinforcements to the other gatehouse.
We are talking I presume about the Mongols in their purest form, which is under Chingisz Khan. The closest thing you actually come to it in history is the battle of Carrhae. But still, all odds would be in favor of the Mongols. Its capital city was Constantinople modern-day Istanbul , originally founded as Byzantium. If he was competent, and universally recognized as having authority e.
The late Roman army used more cavalry and had specialized archer units while the regular heavy infantry units apparantly had their own missile-armed men too. Just as Rome's embarrassingly neutered state during the crisis of the 3rd century is irrelevant before Diocletian kicks them back into shape , Mongolia's defeats 3 generations after its height during Kublai's reign isn't relevant. These laws were just a scam in order to get money from wealthy women in order to pay for the war. During this period, trade across Europe and Asia on the Silk Road was reestablished, and the Mongols led some of the most successful campaigns… 1802 Words 8 Pages the Mongols were a group of nomadic pastoralists who, over the span of 150 years, were able to gain control over nearly all of Eurasia. The Roman Empire has rich history, helpful geography and resources, provinces, an advanced government, unique people and a fascinating culture. Casualties and losses 1274: 22,500 killed before landing or drowning 1281: 130,500 killed before landing or drowning Vs Japans 10 and 40. And they had more solders, used a lot of very skilled cavalry, and ranged cavalry.
The pilum was so short that the second rank couldn't even reach far enough past the front rank to be effective. The Mongols are supposed to be the originators of the Black Death. If the battle occurred on mountainous area, the Romans would largely be safe if they hold the higher ground. In the case of Rome, the governance was centralized. Mongol tactics relied on the enemy breaking formation and giving chase, especially as the mongols themselves did not use extensive ammunition supply trains. However, the Turkish realm that had been taken by the military force remained occupied by the Mongols. Who would win in a battle or a war between the two? This can be done either in your Preferences with the Style option, or in the bottom left of the site with the little brush icon.
Thus if you've got the morale and the supplies to hold out for long enough the fundamentally unstable mongols might very well bugger off home again. Their strong point was in excellent inter-unit communication and coorperation as I had emphasised again and again. By the end of the 14th century, most of Anatolia was controlled by various due to the collapse of the Seljuk dynasty in Rum. That is yet another great advantage. Genghis would not have enough warriors in a hundred years to take the entirety of the Roman Empire at its height. The mongol force, which consists of 6,000 ranged cavalry and 4,000 heavy lancers, will quickly encircle them and utterly crush the much lighter roman equites leaving just the roman infantry.
Without such resources the ability to dominate and secure territories even as they defeat Roman armies consecutively would be greatly difficult- as was proven in the case of Hannibal's brilliant record of battles in Italy yet ultimately failed to defeat Rome. They are naturally going to form up into cohort or legion squares when faced with a mounted, more maneuverable opponent. And I've already brought up the faults in your 'run away' theory or should I say cop out. The only biological evidence that the Romans used was the elephant. Never underestimate technological progress--a sentiment that applies to Mongol tech vs.
Disciplined, heavy infantry is capable of defeating cavalry and has done so on many occaisions. I agree, but Mongols definately would win. You can be banned for a first offense. The Romans had access to North Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. In 285, the emperor Diocletian r.
The Mongolians never let a city wall bother them and the travelling forts of the Roman legions would fall easily not to mention the defences of the Roman cities themselves. ~Wiz C'mon man, this is a fictional thread. Since both civilizations have a central government; this was a smart move, it would keep the region more united. After being thus softened up, they then have to face the armies of the Mongols themselves. This would allow the romans to, over a long period, destroy the mongol armies. The heavily armored infantry could not compete with the cavalry archers that the Mongols employed. Horse archers aren't ideal for taking fortifications, but they are very good at besieging them.