Who? All of us who responded before you chose the Mongols. Every single one of us.
You're right. I read one or two comments and overstated.
I really wrote that because of fluffly_bunny and draftguy. Apologies for not paying closer attention to the rest =(
Enizzle- The Roman armies only truly shined when under the leadership of talented men. Yes, they had great training (arguably the best in that era), and also utilized highly inventive and innovative tactics not seen anywhere else, but they were also highly dependent on leadership.
You're absolutely wrong regarding the "other military factions." The Greeks used a mixture of phalanx warfare and Alexandrian tactics, though without actually using Alexandrian tactics. In any case, neither of the two involve howling mass of men.
IIRC, the Romans beat the Greeks because the Greeks were generally disorganized and fought amongst one another and because they failed to experiment and come up with new tactics to adapt to Roman ones while the Romans understood Greek phalanx/phalangite tactics and crushed it accordingly. They also greatly numbered the Greeks in armed men.
And I'm not entirely sure what this shield wall a couple of people are referring to. The testudo? That was not a part of Roman close-quarter combat ideology. In any case, shieldwalls with short swords (Roman weapon of choice) do not lend themselves to be particularly useful against heavy cavalry.
The open field is certainly a big advantage of the Mongols. But do the Romans have any time to dig in first? Even very basic Roman field fortifications like a palisade might help immensely. We know the Romans were perfectly capable of field fortifications and good encampments given Caesar's Gallic Wars.
Probably not as big an advantage as you think. Again The Mongols did have experience of siege warfare. Both in the more formal sense and the swift get inside the defenses before they are fully erected/closed down and start butchering from the inside out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
You're right. I read one or two comments and overstated.
I really wrote that because of fluffly_bunny and draftguy. Apologies for not paying closer attention to the rest =(
Enizzle- The Roman armies only truly shined when under the leadership of talented men. Yes, they had great training (arguably the best in that era), and also utilized highly inventive and innovative tactics not seen anywhere else, but they were also highly dependent on leadership.
You're absolutely wrong regarding the "other military factions." The Greeks used a mixture of phalanx warfare and Alexandrian tactics, though without actually using Alexandrian tactics. In any case, neither of the two involve howling mass of men.
IIRC, the Romans beat the Greeks because the Greeks were generally disorganized and fought amongst one another and because they failed to experiment and come up with new tactics to adapt to Roman ones while the Romans understood Greek phalanx/phalangite tactics and crushed it accordingly. They also greatly numbered the Greeks in armed men.
And I'm not entirely sure what this shield wall a couple of people are referring to. The testudo? That was not a part of Roman close-quarter combat ideology. In any case, shieldwalls with short swords (Roman weapon of choice) do not lend themselves to be particularly useful against heavy cavalry.
I think you misunderstood my position. I interpreted the OP to mean that this was 1 battle with an open field of limited size (like you would see in a turn based strategy game with real time battles such as the total war series). In that scenario the mongols maneuverability wouldn't be as big of a factor and the heavy armor of the Romans would win the day when the Romans closed in. If however we are talking about real life terrain and the mongols have virtually infinite space to skirmish then the Romans would get owned because the horse archers of the mongols could just pick them apart.
Probably not as big an advantage as you think. Again The Mongols did have experience of siege warfare. Both in the more formal sense and the swift get inside the defenses before they are fully erected/closed down and start butchering from the inside out.
You're totally right that basic fortification don't completely swing things the other way. In the context of the other things I mentioned, though, it points in Rome's favor and it makes the result less clear than the consensus thinks. Note the dates: we're talking about Genghis Khan in AD 1206, and the record of his handling of the Western Xia around that period doesn't reveal the kind of expertise to which you're alluding.
Have you seen the "Crash Course World History" series on YouTube? They are AWESOME and I highly recommend them. Along the series, you learn that the Mongols were exceptional in many areas and they even deserve their own chapter in the series:
It's not so much impressive as disappointing. Can you imagine what today would be like if we hadn't lost a millenia of potential scientific advancement?
You're unjust in assuming that we "lost" a millennium of scientific advancement. What you describe as a peculiar stagnation was no such thing; that rate of advancement was the norm for almost the entirety of human history. It is our post-Medieval culture of science that is the aberration. Insofar as such things can be quantified, Medieval technology proceeded at the same slow pace that Roman tech had, or Iron and Bronze Age tech before it. And this is to say nothing of the Stone Ages - you're mourning a lost millennium? How about a lost hundred millennia?
Also keep in mind that the fall of the Roman Empire only affected the area of the former Roman Empire. The rest of the world had its millennium of potential scientific advancement just the same as it would have otherwise. And, like I was saying, it was slow. The fire of Enlightenment had not yet been lit, anywhere. In all of history, that spark would only struck once. Considering how improbable that makes it look, I'm just thankful it got struck at all.
Found this on accident while looking for info on the possibly (hopefully) Mongol themed sets.
The question of how the Roman Empire would fare against [nomadic horse tribe] was answered by the Huns as well. Not only did they push everyone else out of the way (forcing them into more conflict with the Romans) but they managed to exact tribute from the Eastern Roman Empire as well as invade the Sassanids - who either conquered or were the Parthians (I don't know much more than that about them).
Granted both empires were pretty weak by then but the Holy Roman Empire (which was barely Roman by the time the Mongols arrived) would have fared much worse.
To those saying a shield wall would have saved them (I missed if anybody else already brought this up), the Mongols used heavier arrows with a higher arc against armored targets...with great success in Poland and the Baltics (or it may have been over in the Slavic states). They also employed heavy lancers to break through armored formations and had learned siege warfare in China (that's how they finally took it) before they got that far west.
However if you somehow have the option to have Caesar AND Scipio (Africanus - guy who took out Hannibal) in your army then you have a chance as they would probably be able to adapt and start mounting a decent cavalry.
...but then again some sources say that at their height (before the sack of Baghdad or Kublai Khan deciding China was all that mattered) the Mongols fielded an army 1,000,000 strong. So the tactics of the best Roman commanders throughout history might not have been enough.
(I really like Mongols and am hoping that's what the Khans/Warlords trademarks mean. )
well, that's actually a normal thing to guess. The Mongol hordes where expert horseback riders when the Roman empire had a huge infantry and almost no horseback. Infatry vs Mounted army, the mobility wins. The Mongol hordes also had strategies that ressembles gerilla tacticts, like luring the opponent in a narrow place and killing them when they are helpless. Mountain hazards exploited to their best advantages.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Casual crazy magic player, otaku maniac, unrully cosplayer, what did you expect me to be?
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You're right. I read one or two comments and overstated.
I really wrote that because of fluffly_bunny and draftguy. Apologies for not paying closer attention to the rest =(
Enizzle- The Roman armies only truly shined when under the leadership of talented men. Yes, they had great training (arguably the best in that era), and also utilized highly inventive and innovative tactics not seen anywhere else, but they were also highly dependent on leadership.
You're absolutely wrong regarding the "other military factions." The Greeks used a mixture of phalanx warfare and Alexandrian tactics, though without actually using Alexandrian tactics. In any case, neither of the two involve howling mass of men.
IIRC, the Romans beat the Greeks because the Greeks were generally disorganized and fought amongst one another and because they failed to experiment and come up with new tactics to adapt to Roman ones while the Romans understood Greek phalanx/phalangite tactics and crushed it accordingly. They also greatly numbered the Greeks in armed men.
And I'm not entirely sure what this shield wall a couple of people are referring to. The testudo? That was not a part of Roman close-quarter combat ideology. In any case, shieldwalls with short swords (Roman weapon of choice) do not lend themselves to be particularly useful against heavy cavalry.
Probably not as big an advantage as you think. Again The Mongols did have experience of siege warfare. Both in the more formal sense and the swift get inside the defenses before they are fully erected/closed down and start butchering from the inside out.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
I think you misunderstood my position. I interpreted the OP to mean that this was 1 battle with an open field of limited size (like you would see in a turn based strategy game with real time battles such as the total war series). In that scenario the mongols maneuverability wouldn't be as big of a factor and the heavy armor of the Romans would win the day when the Romans closed in. If however we are talking about real life terrain and the mongols have virtually infinite space to skirmish then the Romans would get owned because the horse archers of the mongols could just pick them apart.
You're totally right that basic fortification don't completely swing things the other way. In the context of the other things I mentioned, though, it points in Rome's favor and it makes the result less clear than the consensus thinks. Note the dates: we're talking about Genghis Khan in AD 1206, and the record of his handling of the Western Xia around that period doesn't reveal the kind of expertise to which you're alluding.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=szxPar0BcMo
Take a look at it and you will see why they would have crushed the Roman Army.
[Clan Flamingo]
The clan for custom card creators!
Also keep in mind that the fall of the Roman Empire only affected the area of the former Roman Empire. The rest of the world had its millennium of potential scientific advancement just the same as it would have otherwise. And, like I was saying, it was slow. The fire of Enlightenment had not yet been lit, anywhere. In all of history, that spark would only struck once. Considering how improbable that makes it look, I'm just thankful it got struck at all.
If they did, I for one would not describe the battle as taking place on an "open field".
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The question of how the Roman Empire would fare against [nomadic horse tribe] was answered by the Huns as well. Not only did they push everyone else out of the way (forcing them into more conflict with the Romans) but they managed to exact tribute from the Eastern Roman Empire as well as invade the Sassanids - who either conquered or were the Parthians (I don't know much more than that about them).
Granted both empires were pretty weak by then but the Holy Roman Empire (which was barely Roman by the time the Mongols arrived) would have fared much worse.
To those saying a shield wall would have saved them (I missed if anybody else already brought this up), the Mongols used heavier arrows with a higher arc against armored targets...with great success in Poland and the Baltics (or it may have been over in the Slavic states). They also employed heavy lancers to break through armored formations and had learned siege warfare in China (that's how they finally took it) before they got that far west.
However if you somehow have the option to have Caesar AND Scipio (Africanus - guy who took out Hannibal) in your army then you have a chance as they would probably be able to adapt and start mounting a decent cavalry.
...but then again some sources say that at their height (before the sack of Baghdad or Kublai Khan deciding China was all that mattered) the Mongols fielded an army 1,000,000 strong. So the tactics of the best Roman commanders throughout history might not have been enough.
(I really like Mongols and am hoping that's what the Khans/Warlords trademarks mean. )