Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Could the Roman Empire withstood the mongol invasion?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Could the Roman Empire withstood the mongol invasion?

    I am talking about a well run Roman Empire ands a real big time invasion of the whole Europe.
    texjoy861 from youtube:

    "Aaron Sorkin writes like a limousine liberal version of Ayn Rand. None of the characters sound remotely like human beings."

  • #2
    Since they did pretty well against the "Mongols" of the day, the Huns, when they were on their last legs, I'd have to say yes.
    "Why is the Rum gone?"

    -Captain Jack

    Comment


    • #3
      Only if the Romans have thousands of Zulus to help defend their borders. And only if the Mongols aren't allied with the Klingons.

      Yeah, I went there. It's not as if this thread wasn't going to go into the toilet soon anyway.
      The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

      Comment


      • #4
        It's not as if this thread wasn't going to go into the toilet soon anyway.
        texjoy861 from youtube:

        "Aaron Sorkin writes like a limousine liberal version of Ayn Rand. None of the characters sound remotely like human beings."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
          Since they did pretty well against the "Mongols" of the day, the Huns, when they were on their last legs, I'd have to say yes.
          wait i though the parthgian got all pouring of gold down throats on the romans
          you think you a real "bleep" solders you "bleep" plastic solders don't wory i will make you in to real "bleep" solders!! "bleep" plastic solders

          CPO Mzinyati

          Comment


          • #6
            Yeah, the Romans had to develop alternate tactics amd use more cavalry after Crassus was eliminated by them.
            texjoy861 from youtube:

            "Aaron Sorkin writes like a limousine liberal version of Ayn Rand. None of the characters sound remotely like human beings."

            Comment


            • #7
              I think they would have done fine. The Byzantine empire did OK against similar groups. With the full wealth of the whole empire together it would have been interesting. Expect to see legionary infantry backed by well armored Frankish cavalry and even eastern style heavy horse archers and horse archers. The romans were willing to adapt. I'd suspect that the romans would have already adapted to the turks. And the Mongols are like very efficient turks. Plus the roman road network would give them some logistical advantages. And the terrain of Europe could work to the advantage of the army with short and efficient logistics and fortified choke points.
              Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

              Comment


              • #8
                The Byzantines paid them of a lot of times or paid an another group to attack them. The mongols were successfull against the Kypchaks and the Pechenegs despte the fact that they were nomads.
                texjoy861 from youtube:

                "Aaron Sorkin writes like a limousine liberal version of Ayn Rand. None of the characters sound remotely like human beings."

                Comment


                • #9
                  I was noting that the mongols fought the same way. Just with efficient administration and unity of command. A strong Roman empire would have those two things. And if they had the experience of the other groups they wouldn't find the Mongols to be unique problems. It would certainly be a fight amongst Juggernauts. But not insurmountable.
                  Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I remember that the Mongols trounced the Hungarians badly... and then turned around and rode away.

                    It seems that the Mongols viewed Europe as a source of plunder, but not really the sort of place they wanted to rule. So, that part of the Roman Empire is not really part of the picture.

                    But, that still leaves the East, and that's where the real money is, as them say.
                    At its height, the Romans had Mesopotamia right down to the Persian Gulf. This was a place of prime interest to the Mongols, they swept right in and demolished Baghdad and went all the way to Suez. Anatolia was also within reach.

                    How would Rome have dealt with a massive war of maneuver in THAT region?

                    "Massive" in terms of frontage involved, those wide open spaces were just the place where the Mongols were most mobile, and most dangerous.

                    I'm thinking that they would have to rely on Fortified cities to base their heavy infantry and shelter their lesser Cavalry forces, Nisibis seems a likely place... and hope they had a General brilliant enough to anticipate where and when the decisive engagement would take place.
                    They simply aren't fast enough to react well to Mongol moves, the Romans would have to beat them to the draw when it counted.
                    "Why is the Rum gone?"

                    -Captain Jack

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Did the Mongols have any good intel on what was in Western Europe? How would the Mongol's have faired, being a cavalry heavy force, in the more forested parts of Europe? What about numbers? How do the forces compare in size? Would the Mongols have enough men to get into a war of attrition with Rome and any allies they might have?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by phil74501 View Post
                        Did the Mongols have any good intel on what was in Western Europe?
                        The Mongols are known for their intelligence gathering and their speed of communication. When the Mongols were knocking at the gates of Vienna, they turned around when news of the Great Khan's death arrived in ten days.

                        How would the Mongol's have faired, being a cavalry heavy force, in the more forested parts of Europe?
                        Better than the Romans. The Mongols were bow heavy. Roman Legions don't do well in forest against bows.

                        What about numbers? How do the forces compare in size? Would the Mongols have enough men to get into a war of attrition with Rome and any allies they might have?
                        Who know? Until the OP gives some clues, we are just all pulling stuff out of our .
                        Last edited by Salinator; 21 Dec 13, 00:43.
                        Flag: USA / Location: West Coast

                        Prayers.

                        BoRG

                        http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PtsX_Z3CMU

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                          I remember that the Mongols trounced the Hungarians badly... and then turned around and rode away.

                          It seems that the Mongols viewed Europe as a source of plunder, but not really the sort of place they wanted to rule. So, that part of the Roman Empire is not really part of the picture.
                          As Sal said. The succession was more important than anything else in their world, and so that was the #1 focus.

                          If Ögedei had have put off drinking himself to death for another five years, Europe would have been a Mongol province.

                          I'd suggest that Rome at her height would have been trounced by the Mongols at their height.
                          Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the cheesemakers

                          That's right bitches. I'm blessed!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Salinator View Post
                            Better than the Romans. The Mongols were bow heavy. Roman Legions don't do well in forest against bows.
                            How well to Cavalry do in Forests?

                            Originally posted by Salinator View Post
                            Who know? Until the OP gives some clues, we are just all pulling stuff out of our .
                            We could take numbers provided by history, and see what the maximum was that each Empire was able to field in each region.

                            Originally posted by Rojik View Post
                            If Ögedei had have put off drinking himself to death for another five years, Europe would have been a Mongol province.
                            It happened more than once, so I don't think we can automatically say that its can't happen in this scenario.

                            I'm still focused on the Middle East. Can we say that the Persian Empire has already been over-run if the Mongols have gone this far?
                            "Why is the Rum gone?"

                            -Captain Jack

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              How well to Cavalry do in Forests?
                              I assume cavalry archers do well.

                              I'm still focused on the Middle East. Can we say that the Persian Empire has already been over-run if the Mongols have gone this far?
                              Wich bow is better, the parthian or the mongol one?
                              texjoy861 from youtube:

                              "Aaron Sorkin writes like a limousine liberal version of Ayn Rand. None of the characters sound remotely like human beings."

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X