Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Could the Roman Empire withstood the mongol invasion?

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

  • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
    Superior Mongol organisation and discipline gave them a big advantage over the enemies they fought, none of whom were as well organised.
    That and the fact they were well led by competent officers, had superior mobility, and command and control.

    Really? Even if the Mongols are dragging along infantry, a siege train or a huge amount of loot? Or even against an all-mounted Roman force?
    The main maneuver force is made up mostly of cavalry. Their job is to destroy the enemy in the open or herd them into defended points. Once they are fixed, the infantry and engineers do their thing.

    Oh yeah based on what?
    Read their military ops and you will see.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by IDonT4 View Post
      That and the fact they were well led by competent officers, had superior mobility, and command and control.
      The Mongols did not always have superior mobility to the armies they faced.
      But certainly their organisation, discipline and leadership gave them a big advantage over the armies they historically faced. It won't mean beans to the Romans OTOH.

      The main maneuver force is made up mostly of cavalry. Their job is to destroy the enemy in the open or herd them into defended points. Once they are fixed, the infantry and engineers do their thing.
      This sounds like some steppe tactics ideal. The Roman Empire was full of towns, cities, roads, navies, garrisons and lots of bad country for horses.
      Where do you imagine this 'open' to be?

      The Mongols chief advantage over the Romans is that they can always flee away.
      Bringing along engineers and infantry means now they cannot.

      Read their military ops and you will see.
      Then I will see that 'Their command and control is faster and more efficient.'? I doubt it. Or do you think the Romans are thick and can only unnnerstand things much more s l o w l y.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
        The Mongols did not always have superior mobility to the armies they faced.
        Such as? The Mongol army's operational mobility was faster than the speed of news couriers. That means they operate inside their enemy's decision loop and defeat it by incapacitating decision-making cycles.

        But certainly their organisation, discipline and leadership gave them a big advantage over the armies they historically faced. It won't mean beans to the Romans OTOH.
        Yes it will because the Mongols also have, in addition to superior mobility, have superior tempo.

        This sounds like some steppe tactics ideal. The Roman Empire was full of towns, cities, roads, navies, garrisons and lots of bad country for horses. Where do you imagine this 'open' to be?

        The Mongols chief advantage over the Romans is that they can always flee away. Bringing along engineers and infantry means now they cannot.
        See. Those Roman towns and cities become isolated non-communicating strong points WITHOUT a cohesive strategy. Combined with the destruction of selected targets (command and control, logistical bases), this factors will cause a collapse in the Roman will to resists. Therefore, bypassing and cutting off Roman strong points will results in the collapse of that strong point even where the physical damage is minimal (one great historical example is the Maginot Line).


        Then I will see that 'Their command and control is faster and more efficient.'? I doubt it. Or do you think the Romans are thick and can only unnnerstand things much more s l o w l y.
        Show me Roman operation where an overall theater commander coordinate multi-axis corps level attack that is separated by hundreds if not thousands of miles, which they execute flawlessly and according to timetables.
        Last edited by IDonT4; 07 Jan 14, 13:58.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by IDonT4 View Post
          Such as? The Mongol army's operational mobility was faster than the speed of news couriers.
          In primitive tribal societies maybe. In the Roman empire with its courier network of fresh horse relays and fast ships not a chance.


          Yes it will because the Mongols also have, in addition to superior mobility, have superior tempo.
          25-30 miles a day for an entirely mounted force with bursts upto 40 miles. That is assuming you want to keep horse wastage at tolerable levels.

          See. Those Roman towns and cities become isolated non-communicating strong points
          Meh. The Romans have excellent horsemen too. The Mongols send out small raiding parties they will be hunted down.
          Divide the army up and they'll be defeated in detail.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
            In primitive tribal societies maybe. In the Roman empire with its courier network of fresh horse relays and fast ships not a chance.

            25-30 miles a day for an entirely mounted force with bursts upto 40 miles. That is assuming you want to keep horse wastage at tolerable levels.
            Not societies but entire armies of Tumen or Hordu level strength (10,000 to 50,000 men). The Mongol Hordu's sustained operational speed is about 60 miles per day with burst of up to 100 miles. They did this by having multiple mounts (about 3-4 horses) per Soldier.

            Meh. The Romans have excellent horsemen too. The Mongols send out small raiding parties they will be hunted down.
            Divide the army up and they'll be defeated in detail.
            Here is what is wrong with your claim.

            No stirrups
            Inferior horse breeds
            Lack of adequate cavalry training (Squadron level to Corps level)
            Infantry centric armies seldom know how to properly employ cavalry. (They used it to support the infantry not the other way around.)
            Roman cavalry was garbage compared to its contemporaries (Parthia, Roxolani, Scythians, Massagetae, Kushans, and Xiong-nu.)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by IDonT4 View Post
              The Mongol Hordu's sustained operational speed is about 60 miles per day with burst of up to 100 miles. They did this by having multiple mounts (about 3-4 horses) per Soldier.
              Hyperbole. The Mongol Derby only averages 100 miles per day and that is with a fresh horse at every 40km.
              http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/horse-racing/23668165

              Multiples mounts per rider certainly permit a fully mounted force to travel faster, not least because excessive horse wastage is more manageable, to be replaced by seizure of the conquered tribes herds.



              Here is what is wrong with your claim.

              No stirrups
              Inferior horse breeds
              Lack of adequate cavalry training (Squadron level to Corps level)
              Infantry centric armies seldom know how to properly employ cavalry. (They used it to support the infantry not the other way around.)
              Roman cavalry was garbage compared to its contemporaries (Parthia, Roxolani, Scythians, Massagetae, Kushans, and Xiong-nu.)
              Rather a kiddicastle level of debate there.
              The cavalry of the Roman Empire were just as good as all the other elements of their armies. Disciplined, well trained, well equipped and well organised (and well paid). Squadron and upwards level manoeuvre is exactly where the regular trained units of cavalry are superior to their irregular tribal counterparts.
              Roman cavalry was used as they any cavalry in a combined arms force was supposed to be used. In scouting, advance guard, rear guard, flank guard, protecting the flanks in battle, in pursuit and occasionally as the main striking force.

              As for stirrups some of the most highly regarded light horse of the Classical world - the Numidians - didn't even have saddles. The Romans used Numidians very effectively against Parthian horse archers.

              Comment


              • Gooner,

                Debating with you is pointless as you do not know certain key aspects of what I am talking about. I have attached a link to a well written research by the US Army War College regarding the Mongol Army and Maneuver Warfare. It is very informative. Pay close attention to pg. 5-8.

                http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA378208

                Edit: Added another paper on the Persian Invasion. This one is actually is more informative than the previous one.

                http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA566706
                Last edited by IDonT4; 08 Jan 14, 14:48.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by IDonT4 View Post
                  Gooner,

                  Debating with you is pointless as you do not know certain key aspects of what I am talking about. I have attached a link to a well written research by the US Army War College regarding the Mongol Army and Maneuver Warfare. It is very informative. Pay close attention to pg. 5-8.

                  http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA378208

                  Edit: Added another paper on the Persian Invasion. This one is actually is more informative than the previous one.

                  http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA566706

                  I always approach miltary monographs by American Lt. Colonels with trepidation, they didn't disappoint in that regard
                  The first one was pretty awful, the second a lot better but it's interesting to me that you only cherrypick the information from them that suits your prejudices.


                  For what its worth, none of the Mongols opponents, not one, was as rich, as powerful or as militarily sophisticated as the Roman Empire was at its peak.

                  Comment

                  Latest Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X