Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 234

Thread: Rome VS Mongolia

  1. #181

    Default Re: Rome VS Mongolia

    Yes, I know. And that is exactly why I'm waiting for Subotai - because with Carpathian's setting seriously the Mongols are in a disadvantage.

  2. #182

    Default Re: Rome VS Mongolia

    Quote Originally Posted by Argeus the Paladin View Post
    I'd have to argue in favor of the Mongols this time: They aren't exactly devoid of infantry. Though the average Chinese levy they can draw upon really isn't a match for a Roman.
    Sure using Mongol infantry would work to better advantage to keep the Roman infantry occupied, but only for a moment and that's assuming they'd have enough energy to fight heavy infantry after running 400 meters under showers of stones, and then arrows once hitting about 200 meters...and then the pillum once they got even closer. If the Mongol infantry charges in a compact formation to break through the spread out Roman infantry formation, they're easier targets for the missiles. If they are spread out, they'd stance no chance against Roman infantry.
    "Mors Certa, Hora Incerta."

    "We are a brave people of a warrior race, descendants of the illustrious Romans, who made the world tremor. And in this way we will make it known to the whole world that we are true Romans and their descendants, and our name will never die and we will make proud the memories of our parents." ~ Despot Voda 1561

    "The emperor Trajan, after conquering this country, divided it among his soldiers and made it into a Roman colony, so that these Romanians are descendants, as it is said, of these ancient colonists, and they preserve the name of the Romans." ~ 1532, Francesco della Valle Secretary of Aloisio Gritti, a natural son to Doge

  3. #183

    Default Re: Rome VS Mongolia

    What if Mongols sit at 500 meters and surround your fort that filled with invincible Romans ? Romans start to eat sling stones. If Romans sallies fort quick Mongol army woud just retreats while pepering Romans with arrows. Then what, Romans starts to become seperate which is excellent for Mongols turn into melee.

    Also, Mongols were extraordinarly fast moving, if roman army try to stop them with a fort they could just manuver around them after placing some units around fort. While Romans sitting on their fort, Mongols could have reach Rome and sack it. ( I assume Pope didn't come to negotiate with Mongols )

  4. #184

    Default Re: Rome VS Mongolia

    Quote Originally Posted by Sipahi View Post
    What if Mongols sit at 500 meters and surround your fort that filled with invincible Romans ? Romans start to eat sling stones. If Romans sallies fort quick Mongol army woud just retreats while pepering Romans with arrows. Then what, Romans starts to become seperate which is excellent for Mongols turn into melee.

    Also, Mongols were extraordinarly fast moving, if roman army try to stop them with a fort they could just manuver around them after placing some units around fort. While Romans sitting on their fort, Mongols could have reach Rome and sack it. ( I assume Pope didn't come to negotiate with Mongols )
    There's no fort. The Romans are on an open plain. The rules were fairly strict on how this battle would be played out. Please read the thread before posting.
    "Mors Certa, Hora Incerta."

    "We are a brave people of a warrior race, descendants of the illustrious Romans, who made the world tremor. And in this way we will make it known to the whole world that we are true Romans and their descendants, and our name will never die and we will make proud the memories of our parents." ~ Despot Voda 1561

    "The emperor Trajan, after conquering this country, divided it among his soldiers and made it into a Roman colony, so that these Romanians are descendants, as it is said, of these ancient colonists, and they preserve the name of the Romans." ~ 1532, Francesco della Valle Secretary of Aloisio Gritti, a natural son to Doge

  5. #185
    FreeRadical's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Underground Ghetto
    Posts
    244

    Default Re: Rome VS Mongolia

    I might post some videos from youtube on the Mongols,to get a basic, rudimentary understanding of their tactics when I have more time,but here is just a small thing from Wiki's invasion of Japan which could be one of the ways to help in Carpathian's well thought out scenario.

    From Wiki
    The Mongols possessed foreign weapons which included superior long-range armaments ("proto-grenades"), and easily had the upper hand in land combat.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Japan

    That source is from wiki which also says the Mongols without their foreign weapons,armor, had difficulties in hand to hand combat with the Japanese and their tachi.Their is no citation for that satatement,and that seems like an opinion though the Japanese Samurai was very good in combat,but proto grenades were used in Japan and they were on paintings depicting Mongol warriors.

    Also of help some it opinion based on facts,but still interestinghttp://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=The_Mongol_Empire

    Read The Mongol War machine an overview from the above article embedded int the link.Very interesting.

    Edit:thie above link is interesting becase it is written by the administrator of that site who is an avid Rome history Fan.He,and others have written a lot of info on Rome also.Very interesting to get his opinion on the Mongols too
    Last edited by FreeRadical; March 19, 2010 at 04:14 PM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf
    I said, and pay attention here, that disciplined infantry throughout history has almost always defeated cavalry.
    One of the many great quotes by quite possibly one of the greatest amateur historians of all time.
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...93#post6942493

  6. #186

    Default Re: Rome VS Mongolia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenade#History

    The first grenades appeared in the Byzantine Empire, not long after the reign of Leo III (717-741).[2] Byzantine soldiers learned that Greek fire, a Byzantine invention of the previous century, could not only be thrown by flamethrowers at the enemy, but also in stone and ceramic jars.[2] Later, glass containers were employed. Byzantine hand grenades with Greek fire in the 10th to 12th centuries are on display in the National Museum at Athens. The use of Greek fire, or rather variants thereof, spread to Muslim armies in the Near East, from where it reached China by the 10th century.[2]
    Sorry but if you're going to bring in grenades into this we must simply advance the Roman army during the appropriate time. Or else even a Mongol victory will be based simply on technology that the Romans did not have simply due to the era of Romans we are comparing. But even if we are to maintain the same Roman army, it isn't like the grenades are some super weapon. Fire pots have been used in combat long before the mongols and grenades were a Roman invention to begin with. I suggest we avoid getting into siege technology or fire technology simply because it bogs down the conversation. But say the Mongols do get these grenades...does it change the fact that they still need to get close to use them? Does it change the fact that they have to rush across hundreds of meters of constant barrage of stones and arrows before they can even use their grenades? No.
    "Mors Certa, Hora Incerta."

    "We are a brave people of a warrior race, descendants of the illustrious Romans, who made the world tremor. And in this way we will make it known to the whole world that we are true Romans and their descendants, and our name will never die and we will make proud the memories of our parents." ~ Despot Voda 1561

    "The emperor Trajan, after conquering this country, divided it among his soldiers and made it into a Roman colony, so that these Romanians are descendants, as it is said, of these ancient colonists, and they preserve the name of the Romans." ~ 1532, Francesco della Valle Secretary of Aloisio Gritti, a natural son to Doge

  7. #187
    FreeRadical's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Underground Ghetto
    Posts
    244

    Default Re: Rome VS Mongolia

    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf View Post
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenade#History



    Sorry but if you're going to bring in grenades into this we must simply advance the Roman army during the appropriate time. Or else even a Mongol victory will be based simply on technology that the Romans did not have simply due to the era of Romans we are comparing. But even if we are to maintain the same Roman army, it isn't like the grenades are some super weapon. Fire pots have been used in combat long before the mongols and grenades were a Roman invention to begin with. I suggest we avoid getting into siege technology or fire technology simply because it bogs down the conversation. But say the Mongols do get these grenades...does it change the fact that they still need to get close to use them? Does it change the fact that they have to rush across hundreds of meters of constant barrage of stones and arrows before they can even use their grenades? No.

    Sure we can leave out the exploding grenades fired from trebuchets. The early Byzantine(8th century) ones were quite primitive,compared to the CHinese,but leaving them out is fine.However,using smoke grenades,screen was a tactic used at Leignitz to confuse the Teutonic Knights at Leignitz.Don't recall Byzntines using smoke screen.

    http://www.allempires.com/article/in..._mongol_europe
    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.

    Also poison arrows. article quoted from a samurai history page which uses osprey among other sources as references. Mongols shot them too
    http://www.taots.co.uk/content/view/25/30/
    The Mongols on the other hand employed far superior weapons and tactics in their wars in Asia and furthermore they didn't understand Japanese. When the samurai advanced towards their enemy in their time-honoured tradition they were met by clouds of arrows and exploding bombs and were massacred. Mongol bows were superior to Japanese ones, had a longer range, and often shot poisoned arrows. The bombs were flung from trebuchets and blinded, deafened, frightened and confused the Japanese ranks.

    Don't know if the Mongol General is exaggerating,but 100,000 Japanese killed yikes!First Invasion/raid(from same article as one above)

    During the night nature conspired against the victorious Mongols by whipping up a great storm that battered and smashed their fleet. Some 13,000 men lost their lives as the ships limped home. The samurai declared this a great victory but in truth the Mongols may have intended to leave anyway. Some sources doubt that there was a typhoon as the invasion happen out of season, in November, yet despite the brave resistance offered by the samurai they could not have inflicted so many casualties on the Mongol force with arrows, swords and spears alone. The Mongols were quite surprised at the level of resistance displayed by the Japanese as they were used to quick shock raids and the amount of fighting reduced both provisions and ammunition alike. One interesting account of the first invasion from Yuan sources say that a Mongol general, Liu Fu-heng, defeated a Japanese army of 100,000 men! Whatever the case the Mongols were only there for one day.

    I need to find,and I found it earlier where Mongols fired exploding arrows.I know they had whistling,armor penetrating,but they learned from the Chinese how to shoot exploding arrows.Need to keep looking for where I had found it.I don't know how,you could get an arrow to explode on impact,but apparently they did.

    Also quoted from Baron Vlad Felix on this forums Musaeum section on the Dacians,Decebelaus, Roman wars.I don't know his sources,but I like his article,and i must say I agree with him,especially on highlighted, underlined except they(horse archers) were still great even late into the age of gunpowder and after heavy armor.Encyclopedia agrees on that last part,as an earlier post I mentioned.Only problem is the Dacian bow isn't as powerful,thought the Dacians are most likely highly skilled archers.Explains why,how, the Dacian's gave the Romans hell though!

    "The military strength of the Dacians, well known and feared by their neighbors, was a result of their mentality and education, as well as the weapons and tactics that they used. One of the main advantages of the Dacians was given by the extensive use of the bow, especially as the main weapon of the cavalry.The bow was a worshipped instrument in the Dacian culture, more than a weapon. On one side, they used it as a weapon, for hunting and in manly contests, but it also played an important role in several rituals. The supreme god Zalmoxis is often represented as an archer, and in some moments in their history the Dacians have used arrow heads as money. Basing a large part of the troops on archery allowed the Dacians to destroy an important part of the enemy force before it reached them in close combat, and the light cavalry equipped with bows was able to deal large amounts of damage to the enemy infantry, while being very hard to stop. As a matter of fact, the military history regards the bow and cavalry combination as one of the most efficient and mobile weapons, until the invention of heavy armor." -Baron Vlad Felix Total War Center forums.

    Now we'll wait for Subatai on Carpathians strategy,since I know he has been studying the Mongols far longer than me,and thus knows far more.At least it will be a challenge since Carpathian set up a good defense for the Romans.
    Edit:Mongol horse archers,lancers, both brought along bows and used them against the enemy.Lancers using the lance after their success with the bow.Lancers being more skilled melee on horse,and I would venture to guess they're skilled off the horse also.
    Last edited by FreeRadical; March 20, 2010 at 02:01 AM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf
    I said, and pay attention here, that disciplined infantry throughout history has almost always defeated cavalry.
    One of the many great quotes by quite possibly one of the greatest amateur historians of all time.
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...93#post6942493

  8. #188

    Default Re: Rome VS Mongolia

    So if you are willing to say Dacian bow isn't as strong you must have a comprehensive article comparing the two right?

    And what if the Mongols used smoke. They threw smoke and did what? Charge in close into melee? Perfect.
    "Mors Certa, Hora Incerta."

    "We are a brave people of a warrior race, descendants of the illustrious Romans, who made the world tremor. And in this way we will make it known to the whole world that we are true Romans and their descendants, and our name will never die and we will make proud the memories of our parents." ~ Despot Voda 1561

    "The emperor Trajan, after conquering this country, divided it among his soldiers and made it into a Roman colony, so that these Romanians are descendants, as it is said, of these ancient colonists, and they preserve the name of the Romans." ~ 1532, Francesco della Valle Secretary of Aloisio Gritti, a natural son to Doge

  9. #189
    FreeRadical's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Underground Ghetto
    Posts
    244

    Default Re: Rome VS Mongolia

    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf View Post
    So if you are willing to say Dacian bow isn't as strong you must have a comprehensive article comparing the two right?

    And what if the Mongols used smoke. They threw smoke and did what? Charge in close into melee? Perfect.
    There are few bows that can match the strength of the Mongolian compound bow,and I explained earlier that the Huns were to revolutionize draw strength.Not that it matters since the Dacians(I was called a composite bow fanboy once-lol) though they seem to worship the bow and used arrow as currency,did not as I stated earlier revolutionize draw strength like the Huns.There is a reason, flight arrow or not that Mongols also had the longest contiguous distance record for archery.What, did they just make the greatest flight arrows known to man?

    One of the Reasons the Hun bow is better(below wiki).Different bows have different draws strengths.

    Therefore, each bow possessed seven grip and ear laths, compared with none on the Scythian and Sarmatian bows and four (ear) laths on the Yrzi bow."[

    From wiki,but when I have more time I can get more articles.Man you must not have been paying attention when I mentioned all that in posts earlier-lol I sure wish you would have given me Baron Vlad Felix's info beforehand(about how darn good horse archers are,and historians agree),it would have made my job so much easier.I wonder why you didn't
    Last edited by FreeRadical; March 20, 2010 at 02:29 AM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf
    I said, and pay attention here, that disciplined infantry throughout history has almost always defeated cavalry.
    One of the many great quotes by quite possibly one of the greatest amateur historians of all time.
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...93#post6942493

  10. #190

    Default Re: Rome VS Mongolia

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeRadical View Post
    There are few bows that can match the strength of the Mongolian compound bow,and I explained earlier that the Huns were to revolutionize draw strength.Not that it matters since the Dacians(I was called a composite bow fanboy once-lol) though they seem to worship the bow and used arrow as currency,did not as I stated earlier revolutionize draw strength like the Huns.There is a reason, flight arrow or not that Mongols also had the longest contiguous distance record for archery.What, did they just make the greatest flight arrows known to man?

    One of the Reasons the Hun bow is better(below wiki).Different bows have different draws strengths.

    Therefore, each bow possessed seven grip and ear laths, compared with none on the Scythian and Sarmatian bows and four (ear) laths on the Yrzi bow."[

    From wiki,but when I have more time I can get more articles.Man you must not have been paying attention when I mentioned all that in posts earlier-lol I sure wish you would have given me Baron Vlad Felix's info beforehand(about how darn good horse archers are,and historians agree),it would have made my job so much easier.I wonder why you didn't
    Regardless the slings still outranges all the bows and the sarmatian cataphract armor allows them to get closer to use their bows while maintaining themselves in the radius of the protection of the slings.

    I think using a late eastern Roman army would be more accurate in the portrayel in which most of the troop composition wouldn't change save for the cavalry which would use a Turk bow.
    "Mors Certa, Hora Incerta."

    "We are a brave people of a warrior race, descendants of the illustrious Romans, who made the world tremor. And in this way we will make it known to the whole world that we are true Romans and their descendants, and our name will never die and we will make proud the memories of our parents." ~ Despot Voda 1561

    "The emperor Trajan, after conquering this country, divided it among his soldiers and made it into a Roman colony, so that these Romanians are descendants, as it is said, of these ancient colonists, and they preserve the name of the Romans." ~ 1532, Francesco della Valle Secretary of Aloisio Gritti, a natural son to Doge

  11. #191
    FreeRadical's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Underground Ghetto
    Posts
    244

    Default Re: Rome VS Mongolia

    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf View Post
    Regardless the slings still outranges all the bows and the sarmatian cataphract armor allows them to get closer to use their bows while maintaining themselves in the radius of the protection of the slings.
    Interesting, the wiki say that the sling can out shoot any composite bow except for the Mongolian.I know flight arrow However,having an entire army of slingers is better than the old legionary who'se worth is of dubious value against the Mongols.At least with the slingers you might be able to hit a Mongol on the head.Slingers in the Greek army were considering 5th or lowest rank.A rank below an archer and fit for a slave.Maybe the Romans valued them more.They did prove their worth against the Parthians on one occasion,because those Parthians were lured into an ambush and combat at close range with their king getting killed.I wonder though,can a slinger shoot 12 slings in a minute like the Mongols shoot their arrows?, How far is their effective range? They can't penetrate armor,so a head shot to a horse or man?Anyways its you're army so use the slingers,just pointing out things to consider. Mongols aren't Sarmatians ,Scythians,Parthians,and they don't have to get close to use their arrows.



    I think using a late eastern Roman army would be more accurate in the portrayel in which most of the troop composition wouldn't change save for the cavalry which would use a Turk bow.
    You need to have at least a late Byzantine army to even have a chance here.Unless a legionary can throw their gladius farther than their pilum they are pretty much worthless IMHO.You might as well rely solely on auxilia then. The Byzantine cataphract with a Turk bow is a far better alternative.The Mongol bow is better than the Hun bow and uses a thumb draw instead of a forefinger for greater draws strength.I know it is similar to the Turk,but even if its is better it still should be close enough.Each Mongol brought two bows with them, a larger and smaller one for effective ranges.

    Anyways I am going to wait for Subuatai, because quite frankly,I am getting tired of writing and researching on this subject.For me, this this might as well be the Paleolithic Caveman against the Mongols(sigh) You have a good original scenario Carpathian,but you're going to need far better than legionary's. Byzantine Cataphracts +Turk bow with Hun, Cuman,Alan, mercenaries are an obviously better alternative.Komnenian looks to be you're most promising bet . Since Subuatai, knows more about the Mongols than me I am sure he will do a fine job of defending them from here on out.
    Last edited by FreeRadical; March 20, 2010 at 07:46 AM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf
    I said, and pay attention here, that disciplined infantry throughout history has almost always defeated cavalry.
    One of the many great quotes by quite possibly one of the greatest amateur historians of all time.
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...93#post6942493

  12. #192

    Default Re: Rome VS Mongolia

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeRadical View Post
    Interesting, the wiki say that the sling can out shoot any composite bow except for the Mongolian.I know flight arrow However,having an entire army of slingers is better than the old legionary who'se worth is of dubious value against the Mongols.At least with the slingers you might be able to hit a Mongol on the head.Slingers in the Greek army were considering 5th or lowest rank.A rank below an archer and fit for a slave.Maybe the Romans valued them more.They did prove their worth against the Parthians on one occasion,because those Parthians were lured into an ambush and combat at close range with their king getting killed.I wonder though,can a slinger shoot 12 slings in a minute like the Mongols shoot their arrows?, How far is their effective range? They can't penetrate armor,so a head shot to a horse or man?Anyways its you're army so use the slingers,just pointing out things to consider. Mongols aren't Sarmatians ,Scythians,Parthians,and they don't have to get close to use their arrows.
    The Mongol bow's kill range is just under 200 meters. The sling has 400 meter range. The sling doesn't rely on "piercing" like the arrow but blunt damage. In essence getting hit by a hail of stones at 400 meters is like running through a shower of maces.

    The Greeks disconsidered missile troops for cultural reasons.

    You need to have at least a late Byzantine army to even have a chance here.Unless a legionary can throw their gladius farther than their pilum they are pretty much worthless IMHO.You might as well rely solely on auxilia then. The Byzantine cataphract with a Turk bow is a far better alternative.The Mongol bow is better than the Hun bow and uses a thumb draw instead of a forefinger for greater draws strength.I know it is similar to the Turk,but even if its is better it still should be close enough.Each Mongol brought two bows with them, a larger and smaller one for effective ranges.
    You're missing the point. The Legionnaire acts as an anchor. This is what the Mongols lack in this example and this is why they lose. Honestly you give me an example of what the Mongols can do.

    Anyways I am going to wait for Subuatai, because quite frankly,I am getting tired of writing and researching on this subject.For me, this this might as well be the Paleolithic Caveman against the Mongols(sigh) You have a good original scenario Carpathian,but you're going to need far better than legionary's. Byzantine Cataphracts +Turk bow with Hun, Cuman,Alan, mercenaries are an obviously better alternative.Komnenian looks to be you're most promising bet . Since Subuatai, knows more about the Mongols than me I am sure he will do a fine job of defending them from here on out.
    I wouldn't wait for him because he probably knows less than you.
    "Mors Certa, Hora Incerta."

    "We are a brave people of a warrior race, descendants of the illustrious Romans, who made the world tremor. And in this way we will make it known to the whole world that we are true Romans and their descendants, and our name will never die and we will make proud the memories of our parents." ~ Despot Voda 1561

    "The emperor Trajan, after conquering this country, divided it among his soldiers and made it into a Roman colony, so that these Romanians are descendants, as it is said, of these ancient colonists, and they preserve the name of the Romans." ~ 1532, Francesco della Valle Secretary of Aloisio Gritti, a natural son to Doge

  13. #193
    Xanthippus of Sparta's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    near Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    1,758

    Default Re: Rome VS Mongolia

    Just another quick point that may have been overlooked...

    There actually was some conflict between the Mongols and the Eastern Roman Empire. In 1265 the Mongols, sweeping through eastern Europe, invaded Thrace.

    The Byzantines raised a sizeable Palaiologan army to defend aganist the invasion, but before it could even be brought to bear almost the entire force deserted rather than fight the Mongols. The Mongols sacked Thrace, but the two Empires made peace and agreed to an alliance soon after.
    Last edited by Xanthippus of Sparta; March 21, 2010 at 06:15 AM.



    "The fact is that every war suffers a kind of progressive degradation with every month that it continues, because such things as individual liberty and a truthful press are not compatible with military efficency."
    -George Orwell, in Homage to Catalonia, 1938.

  14. #194

    Default Re: Rome VS Mongolia

    Quote Originally Posted by Xanthippus of Sparta View Post
    Just another quick point that may have been overlooked...

    There actually was some conflict between the Mongols and the Eastern Roman Empire. In 1265 the Mongols, sweeping through eastern Europe, invaded Thrace.

    The Byzantines raised a sizeable Palaiologan army to defend aganist the invasion, but before it could even be brought to bear almost the entire force deserted rather than fight the Mongols. The Mongols sacked Thrace, but the two Empires made peace and agreed to an alliance soon after.
    Of course. Less than 50 years ago Constantinople had been sacked and betrayed by the Crusaders. They were in no shape to fight. But we're trying to discuss the military capabilities of each in their ideal form.
    "Mors Certa, Hora Incerta."

    "We are a brave people of a warrior race, descendants of the illustrious Romans, who made the world tremor. And in this way we will make it known to the whole world that we are true Romans and their descendants, and our name will never die and we will make proud the memories of our parents." ~ Despot Voda 1561

    "The emperor Trajan, after conquering this country, divided it among his soldiers and made it into a Roman colony, so that these Romanians are descendants, as it is said, of these ancient colonists, and they preserve the name of the Romans." ~ 1532, Francesco della Valle Secretary of Aloisio Gritti, a natural son to Doge

  15. #195
    Subuatai de Bodemloze's Avatar No rest for the wicked
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    50 degrees, 26.2 minutes North, 119 degrees, 12.4 minutes West
    Posts
    2,436

    Default Re: Rome VS Mongolia

    Quote Originally Posted by Argeus the Paladin View Post
    Didn't I mention in the post? This is a very idiotic idea, yes, but my idea is to choose a battlefield in the middle of nowhere. NOWHERE, as in the 4th or 5th or nth dimention whatsoever, detached from history, macro geopraphy or politics as is, with the specified condition as I have mentioned (High noon, windless, clear visibility, 1km by 1km, flat plains, 32-33 degrees Celsius).

    Or you may as well choose anywhere to your liking that has the similar condition.
    Well then how about mid winter somewhere in eastern europe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Argeus the Paladin View Post
    I'd have to argue in favor of the Mongols this time: They aren't exactly devoid of infantry. Though the average Chinese levy they can draw upon really isn't a match for a Roman.
    Nor did the mongols fail to push peoples before them meaning the local inhabitants. So if they were forced to fight Rome how and where CP describes Rome would be forced to deal with x amount of panic stricken peoples forced to arm them selves with tools of convenience and set upon the legion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Subuatai de Bodemloze View Post
    Ok I will try and come up with a couple fields of play. And I will give the mongols no less than what the EE campain had but no more than there full historical mobilization. 250000 horsemen.

    Mongol military force for the conflict with the Roman empire
    Commanders:
    Lead tactician: Subuatai -overall supreme general appointed by the Khakhan
    Senior Commanders: Batu, Zurgadai (Jebe)

    The Mongol army of 130,000 = equal to the EE campaign

    80,000 keshik light cavalry archers. (Mongol armor was usually light: boiled leather, perhaps studded with metal beads, assortment of leather & metal head gear)

    40,000 heavy lancers (Heavier armed soldiers would usually be equipped with leather armor backed with metal or horn plates, or with chain mail, metal or reinforced leather head gear.)
    • Both types of troops would be wearing heavy raw silk shirts under armour.
    • Each trooper would have a minimum of 3 spare mounts.

    10,000 Chinese engineers, staff and logistics and guard troops
    • Seige equiptment would include catapults, seige crossbow (8' high), onagers, rockets, and explosive and putrid shells)
    • Logistics would cover the communication system, herd masters and foraging parties. As well as personal staff and slave masters and craftsmen like bowers and fletchers.

    Note I will flesh more out when I have time.
    This was the army for the mongols that was proposed by me in page #2 of this thread.

  16. #196

    Default Re: Rome VS Mongolia

    I'll make a matching eastern Roman Empire army. What ground do you want to fight on?
    "Mors Certa, Hora Incerta."

    "We are a brave people of a warrior race, descendants of the illustrious Romans, who made the world tremor. And in this way we will make it known to the whole world that we are true Romans and their descendants, and our name will never die and we will make proud the memories of our parents." ~ Despot Voda 1561

    "The emperor Trajan, after conquering this country, divided it among his soldiers and made it into a Roman colony, so that these Romanians are descendants, as it is said, of these ancient colonists, and they preserve the name of the Romans." ~ 1532, Francesco della Valle Secretary of Aloisio Gritti, a natural son to Doge

  17. #197
    Hrobatos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    7,786

    Default Re: Rome VS Mongolia

    yeap iz would be much like Romans vs Parthians

    And Romans knew how to fight agains Parthians

  18. #198
    FreeRadical's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Underground Ghetto
    Posts
    244

    Default Re: Rome VS Mongolia

    Quote Originally Posted by Hrobatos View Post
    yeap iz would be much like Romans vs Parthians

    And Romans knew how to fight agains Parthians
    This is why I don't bother anymore-sorry Here's the reason why(government) Parthia wasn't a "world conqueror"Fighting few pitched battles against Rome and for example 2 separate divided kings(east&west) of Parthia,and a civil war against a wannabe king while Trajan attacks+Trajan brings the king of Csestiphon's son with him to install as a client king!That is about as weak as you can get.

    http://www.allempires.com/article/in...roman_parthian
    "The political turmoil the Parthian Empire, as aforementioned, was also a significant factor attributing to the lack of open war during the early Pax Romana period. The Parthians had a number of problems on their other borders. In 20 CE, Parthian generals who conquered the regions of northern India declared independence to form the “Indo-Parthian Kingdom.” In 75 CE, Sarmatian tribes overran Parthia’s northern borders, deposing local Parthian nobles. Internal havoc continued to take its toll. It is therefore accurate to describe Parthia as a state in decline. Although the Romans themselves had also overextended and faced problems of their own, the declining stability in Parthia left it vulnerable. When Trajan became Emperor in Rome, Parthia was to face a very dangerous threat of the skillful military emperor."

    "Compared to other powers in the east that came after the Parthians, namely the Palmyrenes and the Sassanids, the Parthians were far less aggressive and their campaigns against Rome far less destructive. Although the Parthians fielded impressive cavalry, they lacked the manpower that Rome could field. The feudal structure of the Parthian empire may have limited its ability to project large armies against Rome. However, despite suffering punitive expeditions by the Roman Empire, the Parthian victory at the Battle of Carrhae has remained a lasting memory in the history that symbolizes the limit of Roman power, even though significance of the battle has been exaggerated."

    "Some may argue that the Roman-Parthian wars were largely reflective of internal turmoil within the two states. This view does have some truth, in that both Rome and Parthia took advantage of the internal civil wars within their rivals. The success of later Roman conquerors in taking multiple key cities in Mesopotamia may have been attributed weakness within the Parthian government. It is also interesting to note that despite three captures of the Parthian capital by the Romans, it was the fourth capture, by an internal foe, that ultimately ended the empire. This fact reminds us that both Rome and Parthia had overextended and each had little power left to conquer each other. Yet, each empire spent a considerable amount of resources trying to invade or take advantage of the other. Thus, the Roman-Parthian wars offer us a view of the complex international politics in the ancient world."

    "On the other hand, Rome’s wars with Parthia had a profound military influence its military, particularly in the strengthening of cavalry in eastern Roman armies."

    That last fact didn't do so well for the Romans against the Huns in the East ,and the Parthian's grasp of siege warfare was considerably weak,unlike the Mongols or even the Huns.

    http://americanhistory.si.edu/collec...s/romvspar.htm
    Also:"The Romans and Parthians fought a series of wars beginning with Crassus' invasion in 52-53 BC and ending with Macrinus' ignominious defeat and retreat in 217 AD. During this time it became clear to both sides that a natural boundary existed in northern Mesopotamia beyond which it was difficult, if not impossible, for either side to maintain a permanent foothold. The Parthians were generally less aggressive than the Romans, and generally sought to maintain the status-quo, particularly with regard to Armenia, in part because they were nearly constantly engaged in suppressing internal rebellions, fighting civil wars, or defending their eastern borders."

    Lastly,what I have been referring to all along about infantry centric armies such as the Imperial.,not Byzantine.Horse archers aren't mentioned because the articles about cataphracts,but they were a vital combo.
    Wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphract
    "Eastern Iranian cataphracts employed by the Scythians, Sarmatians, Parthians and Sassanids presented a grievous problem for the traditionally less mobile, infantry-dependant Roman Empire. Roman writers throughout imperial history made much of the terror of facing cataphracts, let alone receiving their charge. Parthian armies thus repeatedly repelled Roman incursions across the Euphrates, due in large part to the Roman's ineptness in dealing with mobile warfare and particularly cataphracts."
    Last edited by FreeRadical; March 23, 2010 at 04:35 AM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf
    I said, and pay attention here, that disciplined infantry throughout history has almost always defeated cavalry.
    One of the many great quotes by quite possibly one of the greatest amateur historians of all time.
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...93#post6942493

  19. #199
    Hrobatos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    7,786

    Default Re: Rome VS Mongolia

    o please, like Romans didnt had their internal problems, half of time they were in civil wars

  20. #200
    FreeRadical's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Underground Ghetto
    Posts
    244

    Default Re: Rome VS Mongolia

    Edit:I was a little testy. I apologize to Hrobatos.
    Last edited by FreeRadical; March 25, 2010 at 12:43 AM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf
    I said, and pay attention here, that disciplined infantry throughout history has almost always defeated cavalry.
    One of the many great quotes by quite possibly one of the greatest amateur historians of all time.
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...93#post6942493

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •