Rome VS Mongolia

[Subuatai de Bodemloze]

This is a continuation of a thread that was closed from the RTW general discussion forum.

Here is the link to the old thread.

To paraphrase and clarify the original thread OP. let's keep it civil.

Outlines of the conflict

The Roman Empire (at it's military height) say after the Marian reforms circa 102 BC. Or another time?

The Mongol Empire (at it's military height) around the time of the Eastern European campaign circa 1240.

Assumption: Both empires somehow existed in an alternate universe at the same time and went to war (both at their hight) over the middle east. who would win?

I declare that the Mongols would win without a doubt.

[Armatus]

Not to troll your thread, but have you considered changing the Mongols to the Chinese of Roman era? I know that's been discussed, but since you basically have a foot solider army verse a horse archer army wouldn't it be much like the Huns vs the Romans or the Romans vs the Parthians? What other factors would you consider for this to be unique? Is it a pitched battle or an actual parallel world?

[Subuatai de Bodemloze]

Well my intention was just to continue the discussion we were having over at the other thread.. As to numbers of troops I don't know the number of legions Rome had exactly at any one point in time. But for the mongols I would assume the 150,000 they invaded EE with. IMO the end result would be far more devistating to Rome than what either Parthia or the Huns managed, as the Mongols were exceptionally trained at there brand of warfare.

[Armatus]

Well I disagree, because the Huns were just as trained in the same type of warfare, yet they adopted more European tactics the further west they spread and were finally repelled by those tactics.

The Mongols were skilled in art of deception and speed and being nomadic had a highly efficient common class that were bred to be hardy, were as Roman levies may not have had the same skill or cunning.

Still a pitched battle must be set somewhere or we could argue all day. I don't think the Mongols have much of chance if they lose access to the horse and arrow as they were not disciplined in the art of orderly foot soldiering.

[Subuatai de Bodemloze]

Well I disagree, because the Huns were just as trained in the same type of warfare, yet they adopted more European tactics the further west they spread and were finally repelled by those tactics.

The Mongols were skilled in art of deception and speed and being nomadic had a highly efficient common class that were bred to be hardy, were as Roman levies may not have had the same skill or cunning.

They were magnificently trained Arma.

Encyclopedia of military history, authors: Dupuy and Dupuy

The Mongol "Hordes"The word Horde, denoting a Mongol tribe or a field army, has become synonymous with vast numbers because the Mongol's western foes refused to believe that they had been overwhelmed by small forces. Half to excuse their defeat's, half because they never had the opportunity to understand the marvelous system that permitted the Mongols to strike with the speed and force of a hurricane, 13th-century Europeans sincerely but wrongly believed the Mongols armies to be tremendous, relatively undisciplined mobs that achieved their objectives solely by superior numbers. Genghis Khan and his armies accomplished feats that would be hard, if not impossible, for modern armies to duplicate, principally because he had one of the best-organized, best-trained, and most thoroughly disciplined armies ever created. The Mongols Army was usually much smaller than those of it's principal opponents. The largest force Genghis Khan ever assembled was that with which he conquered Persia: less than 240,000 men. The Mongol armies which later conquered Russia and all of Eastern and Central Europe never exceeded 150,00 men.

Excerpt from Training and Discipline: We know little of the details of the training system of Genghis Khan. We do know that each troop, squadron, and regiment was capable of precise performance of a kind of battle drill that formed the basis of Mongol small-unit tactics. Such precision required constant practice under close and demanding supervision. The battlefield coordination of units within the toumans and between toumans and the larger hordes, is evidence of painstaking practice in precombat maneuvers by forces of all sizes.

Excerpt from Doctrine and Tactics: The mobility of Genghis Khan's troops has never been matched by other ground soldiery. He seems to have had an instinctive understanding that force is the product of mass and the square of velocity. No other commander in history has been more aware of the fundamental importance of seizing and maintaining the initiative - of always attacking, even with the strategic mission was defensive.

Still a pitched battle must be set somewhere or we could argue all day. I don't think the Mongols have much of chance if they lose access to the horse and arrow as they were not disciplined in the art of orderly foot soldiering.

Pick your terrain.. be it Desert, Eastern Europe, Mountain of Georgia, forests of Eastern Europe, High altitudes of the Hindu kush. As to weapons that is like saying the romans are to fight without there gladius and sutum.

[Armatus]

I'm trying to think of group of country or people superior in military tactics, numbers and over all equipment to that of the Romans which had been subjected by the Mongols, if I can think of one I will let you know.

[Garbarsardar]

Even if one concedes that the rate of evolution of all aspects of warfare was much slower than it is today, 1000 years of evolution in tactics, logistics, technology and weaponry, confer so clear an advantage to the more evolved party, as to render the question meaningless.

[Subuatai de Bodemloze]

Even if one concedes that the rate of evolution of all aspects of warfare was much slower than it is today, 1000 years of evolution in tactics, logistics, technology and weaponry, confer so clear an advantage to the more evolved party, as to render the question meaningless.

A the lord of the forum apears in a thread of mine... I am honoured.

It saddle and paired sturrup was used in the Jin Dynasty circa 260-420 AD well within the time frame of the teoretical discussion. Infact the Sarmatians used the single sturrup even before that and, there is evidence that Kushan were using it (paired sturrup) around 150 BC. As to the mongol saddel the solid wood saddle was in widespread use in 200BC.

As to the Bow sorry i am at work so I can't get access to my reference books. But it hasn't changed significantly in at least a 1000 years. And that could be longer infact.

[Armatus]

A the lord of the forum apears in a thread of mine... I am honoured.

He surfaces from time to time, though we'd probably see more of him in the WW2 threads

But I'm glad you clarified this regarding the Mongol equipment, I was just about to argue their evolution wasn't so much in equipment, but the art of war itself, as such their particular art just wouldn't work against probably one of the greatest standing armies of Europe without exploiting foreign strategy. We also understand that as the Mongols were masters of deception part of their success wasn't simply being so skilled in fighting themselves, but pitting over run peoples against each other and utilizing the best of all tactics they encountered to astonish and subdue nations further yet from their homelands.

So a toe to toe battle? I don't know... maybe or maybe not as the stage we aren't discussing.

Invasion? Possibly but they're going to need a lot more than Mongol bows and horse riding tactics...

Edit: to be fair to Garb, he did mention tactics, though if it were simply a matter of purely Mongol tactics I leave the burden of proof to Sub to show just how the best legions would succumb to such tactical trickery as this wasn't something the Mongols had originally trained to fight.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

Mongolians would win easily.

The Battle of Carrhae x 100.

A Mongolian army would dominate a Late Republic or Augustan Legion.

A later Roman Army...might stand a better chance. But, the Sassanian armies they went up aganist weren't as powerful as the Mongols.

[FreeRadical]

I don't have much time right now,but this video alone should silence most criticshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGcYGwqb3So

This video shows a composite bow from the Mughal empire,an empire founded by Baibur ,a Timurid who was a direct ancestor of Genghis Khan. The Mongol composite bow was extremely powerful,and as Subuatai pointed out earlier from the poll in the Rome forum was much more powerful than the longbow. I can make a pretty accurate assumption that the bow pictured in the video was fairly similar to the Mongol one.

This may not be a 1000 year gap in tactics,technology if we assume that the Eastern Roman Empire which fell in 1453,was the continuation of the Roman Empire after the west fell in 476. I am not a Mongolian fanboy,and I am more of a fan of Roman history and culture . I,after acquiring a basic knowledge of Mongolian warfare, realized that logic and reasoning will not allow me me to accept that the Romans could win.There would have to be an extremely disadvantageous circumstance(s) for the Mongols to lose in a battle or war.

[Armatus]

Mongolians would win easily.

No.

The Battle of Carrhae x 100.

Very poor example.

A Mongolian army would dominate a Late Republic or Augustan Legion.

Just how would they do this? Certainly not by shear numbers.

A later Roman Army...might stand a better chance. But, the Sassanian armies they went up aganist weren't as powerful as the Mongols.

The Sassanians weren't as powerful as the Mongols? Come now... the Sassanians battled everyone that includes the likes of the Gokturks and other proto-tribes.

I don't have much time right now,but this video alone should silence most criticshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGcYGwqb3So


This video shows a composite bow from the Mughal empire,an empire founded by Baibur ,a Timurid who was a direct ancestor of Genghis Khan. The Mongol composite bow was extremely powerful,and as Subuatai pointed out earlier from the poll in the Rome forum was much more powerful than the longbow. I can make a pretty accurate assumption that the bow pictured in the video was fairly similar to the Mongol one.

Not really considering the Huns, the Avars, the Bulgars all had pretty much the same composite bows.

This may not be a 1000 year gap in tactics,technology if we assume that the Eastern Roman Empire which fell in 1453,was the continuation of the Roman Empire after the west fell in 476.

No for some reason we're pitting a early Imperial Roman army against a later 13th century Mongolian one, one that in my opinion hasn't fully realized the tactics of what will be necessary to win every where.

I am not a Mongolian fanboy,and I am more of a fan of Roman history and culture . I,after acquiring a basic knowledge of Mongolian warfare, realized that logic and reasoning will not allow me me to accept that the Romans could win.There would have to be an extremely disadvantageous circumstance(s) for the Mongols to lose in a battle or war.

The Mongols could not out fight the Europeans they out smarted them. That being said a united front for which there were examples would be tremendously hard for small Mongolian army. They would attempt to feign retreat and draw the Romans out, I just don't see that happening, provided we are going to give equal terms to both sides, which includes competent generals, supplies, time and agreeable terrain.

You're better off showing the weakness in the Roman choice and produce of equipment.

[Subuatai de Bodemloze]

No for some reason we're pitting a early Imperial Roman army against a later 13th century Mongolian one, one that in my opinion hasn't fully realized the tactics of what will be necessary to win every where.

Pick your Roman's Arma. It matters not.

The Mongols could not out fight the Europeans they out smarted them. That being said a united front for which there were examples would be tremendously hard for small Mongolian army. They would attempt to feign retreat and draw the Romans out, I just don't see that happening, provided we are going to give equal terms to both sides, which includes competent generals, supplies, time and agreeable terrain.

You're better off showing the weakness in the Roman choice and produce of equipment.

They could not out fight them? How do you figure? Are you saying tactics and stratagem are not part of warfare? The mongols destroyed united fronts.. The Rus had the Kypchaks.. combined out sized the mongol recon force lead by Subuatai. The mongols we substantially outnumbered in almost every conflict. Destroyed immense Chinese armies.

4000 lbs of force per square foot. All you need to know. Really an arrow that can pierce modern steel. I don't think a roman shield nor armour has much of a chance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSgvgYCQzJQ&feature=fvw

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

No.
Very poor example.

How so? A steppe force using tactics that the Romans could not deal with destroys an entire Roman Army.

Name me one example of the Mongols losing to a primarily infantry based army, especially one that did not use archers. You won't be able to.

A Roman army of any era would have an extremely hard time coming to grips with a Mongol force and engaging them in a melee that would favor them. The Mongols would shower them with arrows, then sweep in and pick off the survivors with their heavy cavalry...much like what happened in the Battle of Carrhae.

The Sassanians weren't as powerful as the Mongols? Come now... the Sassanians battled everyone that includes the likes of the Gokturks and other proto-tribes.

If you mistakenly think that the Sassanian Empire was just as powerful as the Mongolians then I really can't argue with you.

[Machiavelli25]

Name me one example of the Mongols losing to a primarily infantry based army, especially one that did not use archers. You won't be able to.

LOL, did not use archers? Name me a single major battle in history where one side used no range based forces?

This thread sucks. Its way too vague, to begin with.

[Entropy Judge]

How so? A steppe force using tactics that the Romans could not deal with destroys an entire Roman Army.

Because the Roman commander wasn't terribly good, mainly. Okay, so at Carrhae about 43000 Romans get stomped on by 10000 Parthians. So then the next-highest Roman commander (Gaius Cassius Longinus) takes control of the remaining 10000 or so Romans ... and keeps Syria in Roman hands for the next two years, culminating in a defeat of the Parthians that features the death of the Parthian who commanded at Carrhae.

So while the Parthians were able to stomp 43000 Romans, they couldn't beat them when reduced to ~10000. Something tells me that Carrhae was a bit out of the ordinary.

4000 lbs of force per square foot. All you need to know. Really an arrow that can pierce modern steel. I don't think a roman shield nor armour has much of a chance.

Just out of curiosity, where did you get the 4k lbf number? Because Wikipedia's article on the Arbalest says they maxed out around 5000 ... and I'm seriously doubting any muscle-powered bow usable by more than a handful of people would be capable of getting that strong. Maybe a handful of people could use something like that, but I seriously doubt all the Mongols are more capable than Odysseus.

[Machiavelli25]

Didn't you know? Mongols were supermen. Its the new craze.

[Argeus the Paladin]

In response to your PM.

First, I apologize for overlooking the Mongol logistics in my previous posts. I concur that in this sense they have an advantage.

(All of the below is typed out assuming that the Mongols are invading Rome as they did in Poland and Hungary)

But one thing you should take into consideration: The ability to mobilize men over such a vast distance. How many men can the Mongols effectively rally to invade Roman land? No more than 40000, which was the most they could bring to Poland and Hungary. Counting attrition on the way, as well as foreign climate (Germanic forests spring to mind), I expect at least a fourth, or more of that to fall to attrition, like they did in my country. As much as Subutai was a military genius, he couldn't just make all the stress of prolonged marching over half a dozen thousand kilometers disappear. Not to mention, stretched supply lines means it is not all that easy for the Mongols to retrain men or send reinforcements in a hairy situation.

Meanwhile, in Rome. How many men can the Roman emperor muster in times of needs? 15 times that number at the least, if the Emperor wants to. Since census of the Empire at its height suggests that the empire can muster anywhere from 2 to 3.5 million in short notice, including foederatii, auxilliaries and limitamei. This is a HUGE advantage, however you look at it. As TV Tropes suggests (Sorry if this sounds off-topic) a Mongol warrior killed STAYS dead, while the Romans can easily and cheaply replace their losses.

If the Romans loses with this sort of advantage, I blame Caligula.

If Rome invades Mongolian Empire, then it is a different story altogether.

Also, when Armatus suggests that the Mongols did not out-fight the European, I'm pretty sure he meant "did not beat the Europeans with brute force".

As a closing line: We have to make provision for the generals, who pretty much decide half the battle by their lonesome. Who would lead the Roman army? Scipio the Greater, Flavius Aurelius or Publilius Varus? And who would lead the Mongol? Subutai, Genghis, or Toghan? The last generals in each column, by the way, were well known for picking extremely unfavorable battlefields and lost owing much to the terrain itself (though, in all honesty you can blame neither).

[Subuatai de Bodemloze]

Counting attrition on the way, as well as foreign climate (Germanic forests spring to mind), I expect at least a fourth, or more of that to fall to attrition, like they did in my country.

Ah but your country is a jungle. Germany and southern Europe are not. My assumption is that the mongols would advance in the dead of winter. Remember that Mongolia and Siberia get to temperatures of minus 60, so a European winter would be relatively mild by comparison.

Some info for thought

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Prelude In general, Europeans have had a fairly good record in wars, nearly always winning out over Asia, Africa, and America with only a few exceptions. There was the great Hannibal, and the Moslems in Spain. There were the Persians who fought the Greeks, and the grandchildren in the United States who defied England and got away with it. But only once in the whole history of this continent has there been danger of the complete extinction of Western Civilization as we know it.
The Mongol terror swept in from the east, spreading death and destruction in their path. Whole cities – whole nations even – disappeared from the face of the earth. They completely outclassed, outfought, and utterly defeated the best that the world had to offer. When they conquered, they did not annex provinces to their empire, but merely killed everybody they could not add to their army. Such was fate that hung at Europe’s doorstep in 1242, and which was avoided by a hairsbreadth – not by any feat of military valour, but by the unexpected death of the Great Khan Ogedei in Karakorum, five thousand miles away.

Historical Background
By 1235, the year when the Mongols decided to invade Europe, the Mongols had already stretched an empire from Persia to China. Genghis Khan’s battlefield might and the genius of his general Subotai had swept all kingdoms before them. Their cavalry was unrivaled; their discipline was matched by none; their tactics and strategies and siege weapons had been adapted from the China which they conquered. Their bows were the most powerful of their day, and the soldiers shunned heavy armor for maximum maneuverability.[i] Genghis had died in 1228 amidst plans to invade the Russian states and the as yet unconquered areas of southern China. Indeed, Subotai had already defeated a Russian force four times his strength at Kalka in a preparatory move. Genghis’s death had delayed plans while the next Great Khan was selected. Ogedei was less warlike than Genghis and did not lead armies personally, but he kept the Mongol empire together while his generals plotted their next moves. Subotai would join Batu Khan, a grandson of Genghis, in invading Europe.
When considered against the vast and unified Mongol Empire of the time, Europe looked pitifully vulnerable. Their tactics were nowhere near as advanced as the Mongols’ Chinese-inspired encirclements, covers of smoke, feigned retreats, ambushes, and incessant arrow fire from their most deadly of bows. Europe was fragmented into a number of small kingdoms; furthermore, the one man who could have successfully led a unified army against the Mongols, the brilliant Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, was locked in a deadly power struggle with Pope Gregory IX, and did not pay attention to the invasion on his doorstep.[ii] As the Mongols obliterated one kingdom after another, both Emperor and Pope studiously averted their attention and focused on destroying one another. Only one European power recognized the Mongol threat: a few Venetian traders had met Subotai while he was putting down a revolt of the Cumans in modern Bulgaria and signed a secret treaty between the two empires. In return for financial support and complete access to all the intelligence the Venetians had about the various European countries, the Mongols would place a first priority upon destroying whatever trade rivals the Venetians had.

Beginnings: Volga Bulgaria and the Rus To get to Europe from Mongolia it is necessary to conquer a few places first. VolgaBulgaria was the first to fall. The city of Bulgar, not in modern Bulgaria but some six hundred miles north of the Caspian Sea, was utterly decimated. Moving rapidly westward, they demanded the submission of the Russian principalities, who foolishly defied them. The Mongols divided their army; while Subotai sacked Ryazan, Suzdal, and Vladimir in short order, Batu moved up to Novgorod. However, the resistance of a few cities in the way delayed him, so that he could not reach this great Russian city before the spring thaws turned the highway of ice leading to the city into impenetrable marshes. Frustrated in this attempt, the two armies dropped south and reunited in the fertile DonRiver basin, where they regrouped and expanded their armies until 1240.
That year Crimea was subjugated, and Chernigov and Perjaslavl were destroyed. In the winter, the army struck hard at Kiev. This was the most dominant and prosperous city in Russia at the time, though its power had been waning; it was a hub of trade and fierce rival of Venice. The Mongols, unlike most of the other steppe peoples, had mastered the art of the siege and assault, and they gave their best to this city. The Duke of Kiev fled to Hungary, leaving the defense of the city to a soldier named Dmitri. He resisted bravely, but on the 6th of December the gates were breached and the city leveled. The economic and political focus of Russia would never again be here in the south, based on the principles of freedom and liberty set down by Yaroslav the Wise. It would instead be for the austere regions of the north, culturally developing under the autocratic yoke of the Mongols, to become the dominant power in Russia. The country has never been the same since.[iv] And the former Byzantine trading network, now controlled since the Fourth Crusade by Venice, never again had serious competition from the north.

Europe on the Brink
Having now established their supply lines, secured their flanks, expanded their pool of conscripts, and eliminated all potential enemies to the rear, Subotai and Batu moved into Eastern Europe. The year was 1241. Europe hung in the balance, on the edge of total destruction – and few of them even realized it.
Subotai came up with a masterful invasion plan. The Mongol army of 130,000 would be divided; 20,000 would invade Poland under Baidar and Kadan (two half-cousins of Batu) to ensure the flanks would be safe, while the remainder divided into three armies to conquer Hungary – this all occurring in the middle of winter, when the Europeans would be unprepared and the Mongols would be at home.
Poland was taken completely by surprise. The Teutonic Knights and the Polish barons threw aside their extreme dislike for one another to unite against this strange and sudden foe. The Mongols crossed the frozen river Vistula and divided their forces in two, Kadan raiding through Mazovia, and Baidar striking at Krakow. Baidar came near enough to the city walls for Vladimir, commander of the Polish army, to see them, and then began retreating. Sensing victory, the Poles came out from behind the walls and chased after the Mongols until they reached a village called Chmielnik, where nearly the entire army was obliterated by a Mongol ambush. He burned Krakow and besieged Breslau, but abandoned the siege when he heard from the omni-present Mongol/Venetian intelligence that Duke Henry of Silesia had brought an army of thirty thousand together at Liegnitz (Legnica) only forty miles away, and that King Vaclav of Bohemia was marching to join him. The Mongols rode with all speed to Liegnitz, and got there a day before King Vaclav; immediately they engaged in battle.

The Helplessness of Europe
Liegnitz, April 9th, 1241. The battle found the best fighters of Europe facing a small wing of the Mongol army. The Teutonic Knights from Northern Germany, the Templars and Hospitallers from France, and the flower of the south German chivalry, as well as many mercenaries and peasants to fill the ranks, outnumbered Baidar’s two columns by three to two. In retrospect, the odds were unfair, because the Europeans never had a chance. The Mongols executed a perfect performance of their classic maneuver. A body of horsemen, which was in fact only a small portion of the Mongol army, rode to within range of the Germans, fired one volley, and began retreating. Sensing victory, the cavalry began charging after the fleeing enemy, leaving the infantry behind, leaderless.
The Germans spur their horses on, but are suddenly enveloped by a cloud of smoke. The Mongols have set off smoke bombs and the fleeing foe is nowhere to be found. The Mongols begin filling the sky with clouds of arrows, which fall upon the Europeans and completely disorganize them. Then the Mongol heavy cavalry is sent in, and utterly annihilates the best of Europe with minimal loss. In the meantime a detatchment is sent over to the infantry, which, cut off from its leaders by the smoke screen, has been unsure what to do. They have little more time to wonder, for the Mongols easily surround them and kill them with their arrows. There are practically no survivors of Europe’s finest. To count the enemy’s dead, the Mongols cut an ear off of each man who was lying on the field. They filled nine large sacks of ears and sent them to Batu as tribute.
Only one day’s march away, with an army more than twice the size of Baidar’s, King Vaclav hesitated at the news. Then he marched back to Bohemia to recruit more troops. Since Baidar did not want trouble for Batu from the Czechs while in Hungary, he harried Vaclav for a while, then ‘retreated’ to the northwest, drawing Vaclav after him. There were now no armies that could possibly help Hungary on Batu’s flank. After drawing Vaclav far enough, Baidar and Kadan split their army into small groups and burned their way back to Hungary, where Batu and Subotai had also won a great victory, only one day after Liegnitz.

As for General. I would take my name sake, my lord Temujin & Batu. Jebe was a fine general as well.

They thrust into Armenia, then under the Georgian authority, and defeated some 60,000 Georgians and Armenians commanded by King George IV "Lasha" of Georgia and his atabek (tutor) and spasalar (commander-in-chief) Iwane Mkhargrdzeli (also known as Zak’arean or Zak’arid in Armenian history writing) at the Battle of Khunan on the Kotman River. George was severely wounded in the chest. The Mongol commanders, however, were not inclined to conquer the Caucasus at that time and turned back south to Hamadan, only to return in force in January 1221. The battle at Bardav (Pardav; modern-day Barda, Azerbaijan) was indecisive and the invaders withdrew to the Caspian Sea. Then the Mongols marched to the north plundering northeastern Armenia and Shirvan en route.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Mongol - Jin Dynasty WarStrength Approx 90,000-120,000 horse archers
Song Dynasty lent 300,000 soldiers to the Mongols in 1234 after the death of Genghis Khan. More than 1,000,000 soldiers Casualties and losses Unknown Heavy
Invasion of Rus'
Strength 20,000 in 1223
In 1236, More than 35,000 Mongols+More than 40,000 Turkic auxiliaries 80,000 in 1223 Casualties and losses More than 7,000 About half of the population of Rus[1] with minimum of at least 500,000[2]
Poland
Strength about 10,000 (one tumen)[1] over 10,000-30,000[2]+at least 500 armed men from Templar order. Casualties and losses Minimal Heavy
Battle of Mohi
Strength The old datas:
80,000[1]
The new calculations
25,000[2][3]
including Hungarian heavy cavalry, Knights Templar, nomadic light cavalry mercenaries and Serbian valiants The old datas:
70,000[4]
The new calculations:
30,000[5][6] Casualties and losses ~40,000[7] ~1,000[7]

[Carpathian Wolf]

What seems to be going on is a fanboyism of the composite bow not unlike that of the typical katana fan boy. I'll get into more specifics tomorrow if time allows.