Could Mongol armies bring down the Roman Empire?

[D.B. Cooper]

The year is 116 AD. Emperor Trajan did not die, and is now tasked with consolidating an empire overstretched by conquest.

And he will have to work quickly. Even as he is returning from Mesopotamia, rumours begin to reach him of a terrible menace on the frontier.

Led by Subutai, the Mongol riders are plunging into Roman territory along the Danube, coincidentally where the Roman legions are most heavily concentrated. Border cities and towns are pillaged, many good Romans are slaughtered...

The Scourge of Asia has arrived in Europe, 1200 years early. If they defeat the thirteen or so legions on the Danube, the path to Italy and ruin will be wide open. Trajan races to the conflict area and assumes command. How will he fare against the absolute culmination of horse archery, a brand of warfare that has long been the bane of infantry armies everywhere?

The Romans have 13 legions, 78K men. The wiki says that the Mongols had 22K men. But numbers were never a problem for the nomads.

[Dave Strider]

Mongols win.

[Turtle Hammer]

Tough one to call really, but considering how things like the battle of Carrhae and fighting Atilla turned out for them, my money'd be on the Mongols. An empire? With roads? And governments? And science and philosophy? That'd probably sound like a bonus second China to the Mongols, and they'd sack the out of it.

[frontier-auxilia]

In a straight fight my money is on the mongols. By Trajan's time the Roman have plenty of counter measures against horse archer based army. Not only that Trajan made his name by absolutely dominating the Parthains via marching down mesopotamia. However the Mongols are a league ahead of most standard nomad army and if its the one lead by subutai they posesses superior technology, weaponry and armor.

One sucessful counter measure against horse archer is to shoot them up with your own contingent of archers and slingers before counter charging with your own cavalry. This falls flat when Mongols posesses some of the best bows in the world. Composite bows whoose penetration and range far outmatch the average syrian and iranian bows that the Romans countered. Most of the Roman's own will be shot up before they get in range Another is artillery. Good old Arrian who written the life of alexander did a great job owning the Sarmatian by simply blasting their cataphracts dead with ballistae. This causes all the other warriors to flee outright seeing their best and shinniest slaughter so quickly. However the mongols fought Western Xia, Jin and Khwarezmian who deploy artillery as well seeing enemy deploy them would not be that much of a moral breaking factor.The mongols can also bring their own artillery to bear. From what i know the mongol have bombs, if they toss one of them things into a cohort of legion you can expect it to cause their share of panics amongst the rank.

[Khassaki]

The Mongols were good at turning their opponents against each other. If the Mongols could get a couple of the local commanders and their legions on-side, then yes they would succeed with no problem. If all of Rome stayed loyal to the central control, then no the Mongols would fail.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

The mongols brought two very powerful weapons: horse archers and rigorous discipline. The romans only had the discipline. Oh, and not to mention the mongol bows. And cataphracts. And field artillery. And one of the greatest generals in the history of mankind.

[D.B. Cooper]

Discipline is a valuable asset though, unlike medieval knights a legionary wouldn't likely flee from a Mongol horseman once they got up close. Their fear tactics wouldn't work.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Discipline is a valuable asset though, unlike medieval knights a legionary wouldn't likely flee from a Mongol horseman once they got up close. Their fear tactics wouldn't work.

What fear tactics? On the battlefield few fled them, most actually tried to attack them.

[Caesar Germanico]

a later roman army maybe would be better against mongols

[Vir Triumphalis]

Militarily they could. But could they actually besiege Rome? No. At the height of the Roman empire they fielded about 35-40 I think. Rome could easily replace 10 legions. Even if they conquer Italy leaving Rome isolated, I guarantee that 10+ legions are defending Rome itself. Now, who could besiege Rome when Rome was the most advanced in siege technology and tactics?

[Carpathian Wolf]

Horse archers are not super weapons. If your logic us Mongols > cause of horse archers you fail.

[Vir Triumphalis]

Horse archers are not super weapons. If your logic us Mongols > cause of horse archers you fail.

They have a point, being a pitch battle where the Mongols would crush any opponent. But still that does not mean the Mongols could defeat the Romans.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Horse archers are not super weapons. If your logic us Mongols > cause of horse archers you fail.

Their armies were only 60% HA. Most of their opponents fielded many horsearchers too. It was mostly the flexibility and discipline of the mongols that defeated their opponents.


Plus, the mongols were adept at sieges too, they conquered China, which by that time featured much more advanced siege technology. The chinese engineers were probably among the best in history.

[conon394]

Plus, the mongols were adept at sieges too, they conquered China, which by that time featured much more advanced siege technology. The chinese engineers were probably among the best in history.

Not in 100 AD however.

Their armies were only 60% HA. Most of their opponents fielded many horsearchers too. It was mostly the flexibility and discipline of the mongols that defeated their opponents.

However in Europe it would very difficult to use that flexibility, for the very same reason the Mameluks could not be defeated - the were few places outside of Hungary where the mongols could maintain the vast pool of horses and sheep they need to maintain their flexibility.

I seems to be the Monglos were never good with boats and that would be to advantage of the Romans, as masters of the Med they had inside lines of communication and the ability seal off NA Spain Italy Britain etc. Obviously Dacia would be likely lost and Syria/Mesopotamia would likely be difficult to hold.

What of the HAN are the Mongols also attacking China and or India?

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Not in 100 AD however.

I think the thread is "romans at their height vs the mongols at their height".

[D.B. Cooper]

Yes, it's basically the Mongol horde that attacked Europe, except instead of Poles and Hungarians it's Romans. China had already fallen I think.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Yes, it's basically the Mongol horde that attacked Europe, except instead of Poles and Hungarians it's Romans. China had already fallen I think.

Horde? The mogols had the first trully modern army. Ofcourse, if you don't mean ordo - a mongol field army, usually composed of two or three tumen.

[Carpathian Wolf]

They have a point, being a pitch battle where the Mongols would crush any opponent. But still that does not mean the Mongols could defeat the Romans.

That depends on the terrain.

Their armies were only 60% HA. Most of their opponents fielded many horsearchers too. It was mostly the flexibility and discipline of the mongols that defeated their opponents.


Plus, the mongols were adept at sieges too, they conquered China, which by that time featured much more advanced siege technology. The chinese engineers were probably among the best in history.

Most of their opponents were ailing realms or smaller steppe khanates like their own. And their siege craft in China consisted of riding around the cities of the Jin Dynasty, destroying all the crops around said city and having the people starve until they were no more. Hardly "masters of siege warfare" in the conventional sense that you may think.

I think the thread is "romans at their height vs the mongols at their height".

Well the Romans at their height military wise doesn't actually mean when their territory was most expanded. I'd much prefer an army of east Roman Empire 600-1100 or so than Trajan's legions (although they were the best force pre Christian Roman Empire.)

Horde? The mogols had the first trully modern army. Ofcourse, if you don't mean ordo - a mongol field army, usually composed of two or three tumen.

Mongols were the first truly modern army? Hardly.

[conon394]

I think the thread is "romans at their height vs the mongols at their height".

I don't see that? What I see Mongols 1200 early, that means at best they over ran what the Northern Han, so not more advanced than Rome in siege warfare. If you allow the Mongols 1200 years of tech advance allow the same to Rome...

The mogols had the first trully modern army.

Hardly they were the best Steppe Empire ever but hardly a 'modern' army...

[NotYetRegistered]

Horde? The mogols had the first trully modern army. Ofcourse, if you don't mean ordo - a mongol field army, usually composed of two or three tumen.

define modern.