(Based off my limited memory of the Roman Empire in the 31 B.C. and Genghis Khan)
It lacked actual, decent cavalry. It just wasn't a part of the Roman military doctrine. Furthermore, the Roman armies were designed to face powers that used similar battle concepts and strategies-Heavily armored infantry and skirmishers. Mark Anthony suffered a serious defeat when he tried to invade Parthia. While obviously Parthia is not Mongol under Genghis Khan, Parthia did place a large emphasis on mounted cavalry and archers, which were supposed to be the mainstay of Genghis Khan's army. Do have to keep in mind that Parthia basically led Mark Anthony on a goose chase while striking his armies in the rear occasionally. Mark Anthony basically killed himself in that campaign.
Granted, Mark Anthony was never known to be a grand strategist in the way Caesar was, but honestly Octavian was absolutely horrid in battle. Mark Anthony far outshines Octavian, and in 31 B.C. Octavian rules over Rome. Thus, the Roman Republic is Octavian, and as such they do not have a great military mind on the helm.
Against an army such as Genghis Khan's, that is virtually suicide.
Not to mention the Roman Republic (still a republic at that point, however insignificant that term may have been at that point), was so bloodied and in the midst of a huge civil war. As such, organization is a mess and the armies are tired. In comparison, Genghis Khan is just getting started at conquering one of the great empires of the world.
In short, I do not particularly see the Roman Republic winning this. Now if it was during the first Triumvirate of Caesar/Crassus/Pompey, then things might be different. The armies are not nearly as bloodied, and Caesar and Pompey are FAR better strategist than either Octavian and Mark Anthony could ever be.
When it comes to combat tactics, im sure genghis Khan will surely win, he even invaded china.
However, when it comes to politics and really dirty tactics, im sure the romans would win no doubt.
When it comes to economy, Romans would win ofcourse.
thats 2 against a strong 1.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A team should be as happy as a meal - TEAM HAPPYMEAL
EDH - UWGrand Arbiter Agustin IV UBW Oloro, Ageless Ascetic Modern - Mono U tron / Polymorph / NFTW (ninja for the win)GR tronGR
Buy All the planeswalkers!!!
Buy All the Dual Lands!!!
Buy All the fetches!
Create tons of EDH Decks!!!
Eat Nothing but Oats!! (LOL, not true)
Train MMA!!!
Marry My girlfriend!!!
Get her Pregnant only Once!
Teach my Son/Daughter Sports and magic cards!!!
Continue my legacy son!!!/Daughter!!
Given the setting of an open, flat field? It's the Mongols, and it's not even close, really. The open, flat field plays right into the Mongol tactic of the feigned retreat.* I don't see how the Romans can give them chase. To win, the Romans would need a quicker, more direct confrontation that limits Mongol maneuverability.
*Granted, the Roman military is going to be more disciplined than the average savages the Mongols encounter, so they won't over-pursue as easily, but the Mongols are going to hit you, run, hit you run. To win, the Romans would need to cut off their retreats and that's not happening in such an open encounter.
*Granted, the Roman military is going to be more disciplined than the average savages the Mongols encounter, so they won't over-pursue as easily, but the Mongols are going to hit you, run, hit you run. To win, the Romans would need to cut off their retreats and that's not happening in such an open encounter.
A little more research might be needed me thinks. I would hardly call the Chinese, Japanese, Russians, Poles, Turks and the rest of the occupants of Eastern Europe Savages. Vlad Tepes may be the exception.
The Mongols had a lot of experience taking on well organized militarys most of which weren't as deficient in Cavalry as the Romans were.
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
western People Call other race savages because they do not speak their language, do not act like them, and has a very unusual Fashion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A team should be as happy as a meal - TEAM HAPPYMEAL
EDH - UWGrand Arbiter Agustin IV UBW Oloro, Ageless Ascetic Modern - Mono U tron / Polymorph / NFTW (ninja for the win)GR tronGR
Buy All the planeswalkers!!!
Buy All the Dual Lands!!!
Buy All the fetches!
Create tons of EDH Decks!!!
Eat Nothing but Oats!! (LOL, not true)
Train MMA!!!
Marry My girlfriend!!!
Get her Pregnant only Once!
Teach my Son/Daughter Sports and magic cards!!!
Continue my legacy son!!!/Daughter!!
A little more research might be needed me thinks. I would hardly call the Chinese, Japanese, Russians, Poles, Turks and the rest of the occupants of Eastern Europe Savages. Vlad Tepes may be the exception.
The Mongols had a lot of experience taking on well organized militarys most of which weren't as deficient in Cavalry as the Romans were.
Sorry, that was just poorly worded. Of course the Mongols defeated several professional armies. Heck, they conquered half of the known world! I merely meant to emphasize the organization and discipline of the Roman military, just poor wording.
Quote from dondee »
western People Call other race savages because they do not speak their language, do not act like them, and has a very unusual Fashion.
I'm sure that's true. In this case though, 'savage' might include several of the tribes to the northwest and northeast of Rome--and the relative disorganization and lack of discipline of their armies as compared to Rome. That's not a character judgement because, of course, the Romans weren't exactly the paragons of virtue.
Given the OPs specification on it being an open field I am assuming that we are talking about a scenerio like Total war games battles. A giant roman army meets giant Khan army, they fight and if someone leaves the field they are the losers. In this situation I think the romans can win by forming shield walls and slowly running the Mongols out of ammo. Once they are out of ammo it's a matter of pushing them to the edge of the field so they have to stand their ground and fight where superior heavy armor would win the day.
If it was open war the Mongols win by hit and run tactics over time.
I've actually been looking into the history of both quite a bit lately and IMO the Mongols take this easy. Their military tactics were centuries ahead of their time. Sure the Romans were well organized and trained but the manner in which they waged war was still the standard for the time and the Mongols routinely defeated armies that fought in that manner, many of them much larger than the Mongolian forces.
well Numbers, Point Mongol! they were just massive there policy was invade then tell everyone how awesome it was being in the horde and you should join too!
Moral, TIE both sides were fanatically loyal to there leader, Ceaser and Gangus both followed the tried and true "treat your solders like people and give them great perks" during a time when treating your solders like crap was the norm.
Tech, Point Rome, they just had better tech/metal infrastructure ect. peroid.
I decide its VERY close, but I give a SLIGHT eddge to the Mongol's overwhelming numbers tends to beat out slight tech edge.
The Mongols never had overwhelming numbers, not sure what texts you use to come to your conclusion, but they're wrong. Also, it's not Gangus, again, very very wrong.
And the Romans wouldn't have a technological edge, the Mongols contended with a more advanced Chinese civilization and absorbed many of their advances in metallurgy and engineering for combat.
The Mongols were extraordinary disciplined and raised for combat. Their communications vastly outstripped all but pre-modern armies and were tactically well-trained. On an open field against a legion with weak cavalry, they would've annihilated them via starvation and mobility.
Given the OPs specification on it being an open field I am assuming that we are talking about a scenerio like Total war games battles. A giant roman army meets giant Khan army, they fight and if someone leaves the field they are the losers. In this situation I think the romans can win by forming shield walls and slowly running the Mongols out of ammo. Once they are out of ammo it's a matter of pushing them to the edge of the field so they have to stand their ground and fight where superior heavy armor would win the day.
If it was open war the Mongols win by hit and run tactics over time.
Well if you can't leave the battlefield, that changes everything and it's the Romans.
The mongols basically had an entire army of cavalry, each soldier having something like 2-4 horses -link. This allowed them unprecedented speed and logistical flexibility - they could travel 100 miles in a day, a conventional army by foot - 10. They forced their opponents between a rock and a hard place with horse mounted archers forcing tightly packed formations to scatter, which were then easily torn apart by lancers if they stayed on the field. Combined with a flexible command structure, their huge amount of archers (60% of their army) next to their sizeable quantity of lancers (the remainder) ripped apart any non mounted army and were capable of outmaneuvering the more heavily armed and armored knights. If they were outnumbered or their opponent could not be scattered, they never had to actually commit to any battle because they had cavalry, and could retreat, which at best caused their opponent to draw themselves into a line chasing after them, allowing them to pick them apart with their archers.
The Mongols were essentially the best pre-gunpowder army that existed. Their tactical accomplishments were only really defeatable by Renaissance+ technology - crossbows, arquebus, cannons, and muskets. It was similar to Alexander the Greats conquests - no one ever found a satisfactory answer to the mobility of cavalry before the advent of high power, easily used ranged weaponry. If they went on foot or were forced to brawl, yes, the Roman Legionnaire or Japanese Samurai would kick their asses. But they never needed to do anything so crude. People were still trying to use these tactics by the time of the Crimean War and American Civil War. The German concept of "Blitzkrieg" in WWII and the modern American "Shock and Awe" doctrines are both based off of fast, overwhelming cavalry assaults - tanks and aircraft in combined arms attacks, supported by infantry, that render defensive emplacements cumbersome and force rapid force re-deployments in order to cut off or otherwise limit enemy mobility, with the penalty for not doing so being flanked and cut off by superior firepower.
Seems like people underestimate the Mongols and overestimate the Romans. To be expected, because Romans have more emphasis everywhere.
The Roman army was never the monster people think of it as. What made the Romans terrifying in warfare came from their willingness to experiment and adapt to situations and foreign tactics, while the enemies they faced tended to be dogmatic in their military tactics, and their sheer number. The romans outnumbered every army they faced, and were capable of replacing losses that no other powers could ever handle. That's how they won the 2nd Punic War, and everything else was a gnat compared to that.
But, really, the Romans tend to lose in actual fights fairly often.
In actual combat, the Romans would outnumber the Mongols. By a lot. But the Mongol army would basically run circles around the Romans and outmaneuver them. Basically what Hannibal did. What happened to the armies that faced Hannibal? They all died until Scipio Afticanus used similar tactics and countered Hannibal.
The Roman Republic at the the time frame given cannot win. The armies at the time frame cannot win.
This fight basically happened at Carrhae, though they were Parthians, not Mongols. Result: one of the most humiliating defeats in Rome's history. A Roman legionary is trained to dominate the melee by getting in close while staying in defensive formation. This is exactly the sort of doctrine that horse archers curbstomp, given the terrain to maneuver. Rome might yet win the war through strategy, siegecraft, and politics. But it would lose the battle.
Seems like people underestimate the Mongols and overestimate the Romans. To be expected, because Romans have more emphasis everywhere.
The Roman army was never the monster people think of it as. What made the Romans terrifying in warfare came from their willingness to experiment and adapt to situations and foreign tactics, while the enemies they faced tended to be dogmatic in their military tactics, and their sheer number. The romans outnumbered every army they faced, and were capable of replacing losses that no other powers could ever handle. That's how they won the 2nd Punic War, and everything else was a gnat compared to that.
But, really, the Romans tend to lose in actual fights fairly often.
In actual combat, the Romans would outnumber the Mongols. By a lot. But the Mongol army would basically run circles around the Romans and outmaneuver them. Basically what Hannibal did. What happened to the armies that faced Hannibal? They all died until Scipio Afticanus used similar tactics and countered Hannibal.
The Roman Republic at the the time frame given cannot win. The armies at the time frame cannot win.
It's true the Romans lost battles plenty of times. But they were well armed, well trained, disciplined legions regardless, and one of the most effective fighting forces in the world. The cavalry armies that were so frightening were a colossal investment of resources that conventional militaries couldn't match. With competent leadership, their legions were supremely dominant.
The Romans outnumbered every military they faced? Um....that's totally false. What made the Romans so fearsome was their battle strategies. If you have 100,000 soldiers with swords that charge in a horde against 40,000 well trained men in a shield wall, then those 100k are getting slaughtered.
Roman military tactics were based on discipline and the wall, ordered marches and precision striking. The other military factions of the day were more in love with a fearsome howling mass of men with spears or swords or axes descending upon the enemy en masse.
As for the Mongols vs the Romans, the Mongols would outlast them with hit and run, I agree. No horse ever born would charge into a shield wall. However, should the hordes be overconfident and engage the Romans man to man...no contest. The Romans would cut them to pieces.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Some say that time is cyclical and that history inevitably repeats. My will is my own. I won't bow to fate."
Its kinda impressive that the Romans would even have a chance of winning considering the 1000 year differential between the two.
Big leaps in technological advancement require a more urbanized civilization. Technology essentially stalled in Europe after the fall of the Roman empire until the Renaissance, and Indian, Arab, and Chinese civilizations were the ones making advancements - or at least they were until, lo and behold, 2 of the 3 were conquered by aforementioned Mongols. The Romans were supremely well armed and armored by the standards of the day, with metal armor that could shrug off the blows of most weapons. They would still lose in any straight up engagement with the Mongols because of the mobility of cavalry and their self contained logistics. They could simply never actually trap the Mongols and force an engagement unless they made a tactical blunder. The Mongols were ultimately defeated by the Black Plague.
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?
The A bomb coming up earlier in our history, computers more advanced, med tech that can cure aids and cancer and world peace. That's the answer to your question Jimbo.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Casual crazy magic player, otaku maniac, unrully cosplayer, what did you expect me to be?
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.
Also note the dates. Genghis Khan had only just united the various tribes in AD 1206, whereas 31 BC saw the culmination of the Roman Republican civil wars where Antony and Octavian each had over a hundred thousand soldiers. Octavian with a full grip of legions and generals against a nascent Genghis Khan may not come out so clean; Khan's handling of the conflict with the Western Xia doesn't appear to have been entirely enlightened.
Finally, note that the Romans might be able to adapt from lessons learned at Carrhae or from Antony's failed invasion in the 30s BC. We know that the Parthians weren't totally invincible because generals under Antony did score some successes against the Parthians during the 30s BC.
The Mongols rolled over every army a thousand years later. It is pretty clear cut, they fight, communicate, and conduct intelligence like a modern army. It's not like every other army but the Romans knew how to conduct a campaign.
This question was interesting enough that I decided to research Wiki before coming to a conclusion.
In short, in the scenario provided, the Mongols would have kicked the crap out of the Romans; it wouldn't have been close.
The Roman army is exactly the kind of armies they encountered across Europe when they were advancing westward.
Everyone here has been talking about the Mongolian mounted archers and their speed. That's correct, but they forget to mention the second part of why that was so deadly. This is taken from Wiki.
The primary weapon of the Mongol forces was the Mongol bow. It was a recurve bow made from composite materials (wood, horn, and sinew), and at the time unmatched for accuracy, force, and reach. The bow's geometry allowed it to be made relatively small so it could be used and fired in any direction from horseback.[7] Quivers containing sixty arrows were strapped to the backs of the cavalrymen. The Mongols were extremely skilled with the bow and were said to be able to hit a bird on the wing.
The key to the strength of the Mongolian bow was its laminate construction, with layers of boiled horn and sinew to augment the wood. The layer of horn was in the inner face as it resists compression, while the layer of sinew was at the outer face as it resists expansion. All of this gave the bow great power which made it very good against armour. The Mongol bow could shoot an arrow over 500 metres (1,600 ft). Targeted shots were possible at a range of 200 or 230 metres (660 or 750 ft), which determined the optimal tactical approach distance for light cavalry units. Ballistic shots could hit enemy units (without targeting individual soldiers) at distances of up to 400 metres (1,300 ft), useful for surprising and scaring troops and horses before beginning the actual attack.
Mongol archers used a wide variety of arrows, depending on the target and distance. Chainmail and some metal armour could be penetrated at close range by using special heavy arrows.
The short of it was, 6/10 people in the mongolian army trained as mounted archers. The rest were basically mounted lancers. Each mounted archer could live off the land, allowing them to travel one hundred miles in a single day, and consequently could allow them to avoid massive logistical supply lines. Their arrows could strike around a quarter of a mile away, and could go through chain mail.
On an open field, the Roman army wouldn't stand a chance, because it plays precisely to the Mongolian's strengths. Take a look at this excerpt from Wiki on the Roman Infantry Tactics page.
Tactical problems of fighting cavalry
Cavalry opponents were one of if not the toughest challenges faced by the Roman infantry. Combining both missile and shock capability with extensive mobility, cavalry exploited the inherent weakness of the legion- its relatively slow movement and deployment. Defeat by strong cavalry forces is a recurring event in Roman military history. The campaigns of Hannibal illustrate this well, as Numidian and Spanish/Gallic horsemen repeatedly outflanked Roman formations, dealing devastating blows in the sides and rear. Hannibal's great victory at Cannae (considered one of the greatest Roman defeats ever) was primarily an infantry struggle, but the key role was played by his cavalry, as in his other victories.
An even more dramatic demonstration of Roman vulnerability is shown in the numerous wars against Parthian heavy cavalry. The Parthians and their successors used large numbers of fast-moving light riders to harass and skirmish, and delivered the coup de grâce with heavily armored lancers called "cataphracts". Both types of troops used powerful composite bows that shot arrows of sufficient strength to penetrate Roman armor. The cataphracts extended combat power by serving as shock troops, engaging opposing forces with their heavy lances in thundering charges after they had been "softened up" by swarms of arrows. The Parthians also conducted a "scorched earth" policy against the Romans, refusing major set-piece encounters, while luring them deeper on to unfavorable ground, where they would lack water supplies and a secure line of retreat. The debacle of the Battle of Carrhae saw a devastating defeat of Roman arms by the Parthian cavalry.
I'm not one to downplay the might of the Roman military. If the battle were conducted defensively to defend a city, the results might be different. In the scenario presented, the Mongols have nothing to defend. They comprised nomadic tribes anyway. Any foot army no matter how trained is going to have difficulty against mounted archers with room to manuever.
Against the Mongolian mounted archers that conquered much of Eastern Europe, they would have been completely routed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It lacked actual, decent cavalry. It just wasn't a part of the Roman military doctrine. Furthermore, the Roman armies were designed to face powers that used similar battle concepts and strategies-Heavily armored infantry and skirmishers. Mark Anthony suffered a serious defeat when he tried to invade Parthia. While obviously Parthia is not Mongol under Genghis Khan, Parthia did place a large emphasis on mounted cavalry and archers, which were supposed to be the mainstay of Genghis Khan's army. Do have to keep in mind that Parthia basically led Mark Anthony on a goose chase while striking his armies in the rear occasionally. Mark Anthony basically killed himself in that campaign.
Granted, Mark Anthony was never known to be a grand strategist in the way Caesar was, but honestly Octavian was absolutely horrid in battle. Mark Anthony far outshines Octavian, and in 31 B.C. Octavian rules over Rome. Thus, the Roman Republic is Octavian, and as such they do not have a great military mind on the helm.
Against an army such as Genghis Khan's, that is virtually suicide.
Not to mention the Roman Republic (still a republic at that point, however insignificant that term may have been at that point), was so bloodied and in the midst of a huge civil war. As such, organization is a mess and the armies are tired. In comparison, Genghis Khan is just getting started at conquering one of the great empires of the world.
In short, I do not particularly see the Roman Republic winning this. Now if it was during the first Triumvirate of Caesar/Crassus/Pompey, then things might be different. The armies are not nearly as bloodied, and Caesar and Pompey are FAR better strategist than either Octavian and Mark Anthony could ever be.
When it comes to combat tactics, im sure genghis Khan will surely win, he even invaded china.
However, when it comes to politics and really dirty tactics, im sure the romans would win no doubt.
When it comes to economy, Romans would win ofcourse.
thats 2 against a strong 1.
EDH - UWGrand Arbiter Agustin IV
UBW Oloro, Ageless Ascetic
Modern - Mono U tron / Polymorph / NFTW (ninja for the win)GR tron GR
Buy All the Dual Lands!!!
Buy All the fetches!
Create tons of EDH Decks!!!
Eat Nothing but Oats!! (LOL, not true)
Train MMA!!!
Marry My girlfriend!!!
Get her Pregnant only Once!
Teach my Son/Daughter Sports and magic cards!!!
Continue my legacy son!!!/Daughter!!
*Granted, the Roman military is going to be more disciplined than the average savages the Mongols encounter, so they won't over-pursue as easily, but the Mongols are going to hit you, run, hit you run. To win, the Romans would need to cut off their retreats and that's not happening in such an open encounter.
A little more research might be needed me thinks. I would hardly call the Chinese, Japanese, Russians, Poles, Turks and the rest of the occupants of Eastern Europe Savages. Vlad Tepes may be the exception.
The Mongols had a lot of experience taking on well organized militarys most of which weren't as deficient in Cavalry as the Romans were.
- 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
EDH - UWGrand Arbiter Agustin IV
UBW Oloro, Ageless Ascetic
Modern - Mono U tron / Polymorph / NFTW (ninja for the win)GR tron GR
Buy All the Dual Lands!!!
Buy All the fetches!
Create tons of EDH Decks!!!
Eat Nothing but Oats!! (LOL, not true)
Train MMA!!!
Marry My girlfriend!!!
Get her Pregnant only Once!
Teach my Son/Daughter Sports and magic cards!!!
Continue my legacy son!!!/Daughter!!
Sorry, that was just poorly worded. Of course the Mongols defeated several professional armies. Heck, they conquered half of the known world! I merely meant to emphasize the organization and discipline of the Roman military, just poor wording.
I'm sure that's true. In this case though, 'savage' might include several of the tribes to the northwest and northeast of Rome--and the relative disorganization and lack of discipline of their armies as compared to Rome. That's not a character judgement because, of course, the Romans weren't exactly the paragons of virtue.
If it was open war the Mongols win by hit and run tactics over time.
Moral, TIE both sides were fanatically loyal to there leader, Ceaser and Gangus both followed the tried and true "treat your solders like people and give them great perks" during a time when treating your solders like crap was the norm.
Tech, Point Rome, they just had better tech/metal infrastructure ect. peroid.
I decide its VERY close, but I give a SLIGHT eddge to the Mongol's overwhelming numbers tends to beat out slight tech edge.
And the Romans wouldn't have a technological edge, the Mongols contended with a more advanced Chinese civilization and absorbed many of their advances in metallurgy and engineering for combat.
The Mongols were extraordinary disciplined and raised for combat. Their communications vastly outstripped all but pre-modern armies and were tactically well-trained. On an open field against a legion with weak cavalry, they would've annihilated them via starvation and mobility.
Well if you can't leave the battlefield, that changes everything and it's the Romans.
The Mongols were essentially the best pre-gunpowder army that existed. Their tactical accomplishments were only really defeatable by Renaissance+ technology - crossbows, arquebus, cannons, and muskets. It was similar to Alexander the Greats conquests - no one ever found a satisfactory answer to the mobility of cavalry before the advent of high power, easily used ranged weaponry. If they went on foot or were forced to brawl, yes, the Roman Legionnaire or Japanese Samurai would kick their asses. But they never needed to do anything so crude. People were still trying to use these tactics by the time of the Crimean War and American Civil War. The German concept of "Blitzkrieg" in WWII and the modern American "Shock and Awe" doctrines are both based off of fast, overwhelming cavalry assaults - tanks and aircraft in combined arms attacks, supported by infantry, that render defensive emplacements cumbersome and force rapid force re-deployments in order to cut off or otherwise limit enemy mobility, with the penalty for not doing so being flanked and cut off by superior firepower.
The Roman army was never the monster people think of it as. What made the Romans terrifying in warfare came from their willingness to experiment and adapt to situations and foreign tactics, while the enemies they faced tended to be dogmatic in their military tactics, and their sheer number. The romans outnumbered every army they faced, and were capable of replacing losses that no other powers could ever handle. That's how they won the 2nd Punic War, and everything else was a gnat compared to that.
But, really, the Romans tend to lose in actual fights fairly often.
In actual combat, the Romans would outnumber the Mongols. By a lot. But the Mongol army would basically run circles around the Romans and outmaneuver them. Basically what Hannibal did. What happened to the armies that faced Hannibal? They all died until Scipio Afticanus used similar tactics and countered Hannibal.
The Roman Republic at the the time frame given cannot win. The armies at the time frame cannot win.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It's true the Romans lost battles plenty of times. But they were well armed, well trained, disciplined legions regardless, and one of the most effective fighting forces in the world. The cavalry armies that were so frightening were a colossal investment of resources that conventional militaries couldn't match. With competent leadership, their legions were supremely dominant.
Roman military tactics were based on discipline and the wall, ordered marches and precision striking. The other military factions of the day were more in love with a fearsome howling mass of men with spears or swords or axes descending upon the enemy en masse.
As for the Mongols vs the Romans, the Mongols would outlast them with hit and run, I agree. No horse ever born would charge into a shield wall. However, should the hordes be overconfident and engage the Romans man to man...no contest. The Romans would cut them to pieces.
Volrath the FallenB Empress GalinaU Oona, Queen of the FaeBUAgrus Kos, Wojek VeteranRW
Who? All of us who responded before you chose the Mongols. Every single one of us.
Big leaps in technological advancement require a more urbanized civilization. Technology essentially stalled in Europe after the fall of the Roman empire until the Renaissance, and Indian, Arab, and Chinese civilizations were the ones making advancements - or at least they were until, lo and behold, 2 of the 3 were conquered by aforementioned Mongols. The Romans were supremely well armed and armored by the standards of the day, with metal armor that could shrug off the blows of most weapons. They would still lose in any straight up engagement with the Mongols because of the mobility of cavalry and their self contained logistics. They could simply never actually trap the Mongols and force an engagement unless they made a tactical blunder. The Mongols were ultimately defeated by the Black Plague.
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?
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.
Also note the dates. Genghis Khan had only just united the various tribes in AD 1206, whereas 31 BC saw the culmination of the Roman Republican civil wars where Antony and Octavian each had over a hundred thousand soldiers. Octavian with a full grip of legions and generals against a nascent Genghis Khan may not come out so clean; Khan's handling of the conflict with the Western Xia doesn't appear to have been entirely enlightened.
Finally, note that the Romans might be able to adapt from lessons learned at Carrhae or from Antony's failed invasion in the 30s BC. We know that the Parthians weren't totally invincible because generals under Antony did score some successes against the Parthians during the 30s BC.
That's all to say that it's not so clear cut.
In short, in the scenario provided, the Mongols would have kicked the crap out of the Romans; it wouldn't have been close.
The Roman army is exactly the kind of armies they encountered across Europe when they were advancing westward.
Everyone here has been talking about the Mongolian mounted archers and their speed. That's correct, but they forget to mention the second part of why that was so deadly. This is taken from Wiki.
The primary weapon of the Mongol forces was the Mongol bow. It was a recurve bow made from composite materials (wood, horn, and sinew), and at the time unmatched for accuracy, force, and reach. The bow's geometry allowed it to be made relatively small so it could be used and fired in any direction from horseback.[7] Quivers containing sixty arrows were strapped to the backs of the cavalrymen. The Mongols were extremely skilled with the bow and were said to be able to hit a bird on the wing.
The key to the strength of the Mongolian bow was its laminate construction, with layers of boiled horn and sinew to augment the wood. The layer of horn was in the inner face as it resists compression, while the layer of sinew was at the outer face as it resists expansion. All of this gave the bow great power which made it very good against armour. The Mongol bow could shoot an arrow over 500 metres (1,600 ft). Targeted shots were possible at a range of 200 or 230 metres (660 or 750 ft), which determined the optimal tactical approach distance for light cavalry units. Ballistic shots could hit enemy units (without targeting individual soldiers) at distances of up to 400 metres (1,300 ft), useful for surprising and scaring troops and horses before beginning the actual attack.
Mongol archers used a wide variety of arrows, depending on the target and distance. Chainmail and some metal armour could be penetrated at close range by using special heavy arrows.
The short of it was, 6/10 people in the mongolian army trained as mounted archers. The rest were basically mounted lancers. Each mounted archer could live off the land, allowing them to travel one hundred miles in a single day, and consequently could allow them to avoid massive logistical supply lines. Their arrows could strike around a quarter of a mile away, and could go through chain mail.
On an open field, the Roman army wouldn't stand a chance, because it plays precisely to the Mongolian's strengths. Take a look at this excerpt from Wiki on the Roman Infantry Tactics page.
Tactical problems of fighting cavalry
Cavalry opponents were one of if not the toughest challenges faced by the Roman infantry. Combining both missile and shock capability with extensive mobility, cavalry exploited the inherent weakness of the legion- its relatively slow movement and deployment. Defeat by strong cavalry forces is a recurring event in Roman military history. The campaigns of Hannibal illustrate this well, as Numidian and Spanish/Gallic horsemen repeatedly outflanked Roman formations, dealing devastating blows in the sides and rear. Hannibal's great victory at Cannae (considered one of the greatest Roman defeats ever) was primarily an infantry struggle, but the key role was played by his cavalry, as in his other victories.
An even more dramatic demonstration of Roman vulnerability is shown in the numerous wars against Parthian heavy cavalry. The Parthians and their successors used large numbers of fast-moving light riders to harass and skirmish, and delivered the coup de grâce with heavily armored lancers called "cataphracts". Both types of troops used powerful composite bows that shot arrows of sufficient strength to penetrate Roman armor. The cataphracts extended combat power by serving as shock troops, engaging opposing forces with their heavy lances in thundering charges after they had been "softened up" by swarms of arrows. The Parthians also conducted a "scorched earth" policy against the Romans, refusing major set-piece encounters, while luring them deeper on to unfavorable ground, where they would lack water supplies and a secure line of retreat. The debacle of the Battle of Carrhae saw a devastating defeat of Roman arms by the Parthian cavalry.
I'm not one to downplay the might of the Roman military. If the battle were conducted defensively to defend a city, the results might be different. In the scenario presented, the Mongols have nothing to defend. They comprised nomadic tribes anyway. Any foot army no matter how trained is going to have difficulty against mounted archers with room to manuever.
Against the Mongolian mounted archers that conquered much of Eastern Europe, they would have been completely routed.