Genghis Khan's Mongolia vs Caesar's Roman Empire, who would win?

Genghis Khan's Mongolia vs Caesar's Roman Empire, who would win?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Mongol_invasion_of_Hungary
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Depends on the terrain.

We would win.

Khan had a shit ton of horses and Calvary

Cesar

Alexander would of BTFO Khan too. The only reason he got so far was because Christianity cucked the West.

Obviously, Rome.

You have to be a lot more specific

Don't be too sure. The Huns, possibly of Mongol heritage, rode rough shod over the Roman legions when ever they wanted.

Mongols.

This

>Caesar's Roman Empire
>Caesar's
>Roman Empire

aw shit

tbqh Caesar`s Rome wasn`t even able to win parthians, so they won`t win mongols

Mongolia
They were more modern. Even using the gunpowder.

Easily, maybe Rome can hold. Hannibal took any city he wanted but said there was no chance of taking Rome itself.

/his/ would

Nigga khan had only horses and cavalry

Caesar would've succumbed to depression after his first meet with the mongols.
Have you seen the maps?
Those niggas were crazy. They did shit caesar wouldn't have even thought of thinking of doing.

The Mongol Empire kicked the Eastern Roman Empire aka Byzantine to the curb in their time

Yeah, which had already been btfo by Turks.

>knights vs samurai thread
The Mongolian composite bow would have torn up Roman shields and armour.

Which one are you?

There was no way to defeat horse archers until the invention of gunpowder and automobiles

>caesar
>roman empire

Rubbish.
1) Regular arches
2) Through tactics. Like taking advantage of things horse archers can't do - e.g, holding a point.

>what are polearms

The horse archers can dismount you know.

>Christianity cucked the West.
Yes that's the reason the west has been absolutely dying for the past 2,000 years. Paganism/barbarism is the only solution, right Shlomo?

That map is bullshit, i work at Latvian museum, i had talk with archilogue one time about mongols he said there is 0 evidance of mongols interacting with baltic tribes and they don't find any mongol weapons or anything related to them in Latgale.

you can wield a polearm 500m long?

>Mongolian tribes are a German fiction to keep the Latvians down

Oy vey.

Unspoken amounts of brutality through a war of conquest vs equally amounts of unspoken brutality in a war of conquest are not a comparison of skills. Caesar ordered the hands to be cut from every other citizen and freedmen in hostile tribes according to Suetonius. Their aims were different. Caesar's aim, initially in Gaul, was to set up a Roman province versus simply military domination.

And then they lose all the advantages of being on a HORSE and having an ARCHER. Hence horsearchers.

This, also peparing and using terain traps like pits or spikes or pits with spikes
Than they're not horse archers anymore you know

>archilouge
>Latvian intellectuals

fuck off you mongol shit

Part of the mighty Finngolian horde

Yea but you're invoking tactics like horse archers are unable to adapt.

>even Genghis Khan knew how terrible both Islam and Judaism was.

Depends on the size of the armies. Rome at the peak of its expansion had more armies and Artillery.
Also terrain and weather conditions

Latvians have no Mongol ancestry so he's probably correct

Sory achmed, but you are last person to talk about montgols.

Close european combat would be easy win for the romans
Steppes and ME would destroy them though, all the romans need to do was bait them to europe and rekt them, mongols could not put a good fight w/o their horses support

There are things horse archers cannot do, simply by design, like I mentioned - defending a point, or simply the size of a horse, which makes it vulnerable to regular archers.

Caesar's Rome. So the late Roman Republic. Lorica hamata and chainmail armour were standard as opposed to lorica segmentata at the peak of Rome.

Thanks Austriabro.
Also looks like belarussians and poles are the only pure slavs.

>at the peak of Rome.
before*

Mongols being primarily steppe horse archers, obviously were unstoppable on the open field.

But Europe isn't just a vast open field, there are mountains, thick forests and so on. The mongols were especially bad at siege warfare and attacking fortified settlements, and Bela IV of Hungary, knowing this, fortified the shit out of Hungary (after his army was obliterated in a pitched battle in the first invasion of Hungary).

>"The wooden, clay, and earth[5] defenses that made up the walls of most towns and forts (much like those of the Khwarazmian dynasty) fell easily to the Mongol siege engines.[6] Many Hungarian settlements didn't have any fortifications at all. One German chronicler observed that the Hungarians "had almost no city protected by walls or strong fortresses".[7] However, stone castles had significantly better fortunes; none of the few Hungarian stone castles fell, even those deep behind the Mongol lines. When the Mongols tried to use their siege engines on the stone walls of the Croatian Fortress of Klis, they did absolutely no damage, and were repelled with heavy casualties.[8] A similar thing happened when they attempted to capture the citadel of Esztergom, despite having overwhelming numerical superiority and 30 siege machines which they had just used to reduce the wooden towers of the city."[9]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Mongol_invasion_of_Hungary

When the mongols came back some years later after the first invasion of Hungary the Hungarians kicked the shit out of them, as the Mongols had no answers for siege warfare.

For that reason, it really depends, the Romans were very fast to adopt new stratagems and tactics, though the mongols would probably win in a pitched battle, the Romans would probably win in a defensive siege battle.

This. You beat Russia when outnumbered youncould do it again to Rome.

The Romans had composite bows too.

Yes they could. They were very proficient at sieges after recruiting Chinese engineers.
How do you think they conquered all those cities? You can't ride horses up walls.

I'm believe this is Sweden because of Ikea.

Caesar. The Romans actually conquered strong opponents. The Mongols conquered a load of empty space and small tribes.
They had superior tactics. They faced 100,000 of Boudicca's army with just 10,000 men and were victors. When the Mongols came up against Europe the got BTFO.

this

It would be the same as romans meeting the parthians.
>highly immobile inf supported by light/med cavalry
>entire doctrine is highly defensive,
when the soldiers camped at night they built a palisade with guard towers.and mounted ballistas

accounts from the legions that were lost to the parthians went something like this.
>soldiers engage, parthians shoot heavy shot at the them penetrating into the soldiers' arms
>roman soldiers never reach parthians as they just trot away
>all front rank soldiers' shields and arms look like pin cushions and they eventually succumb to their wounds

Though horses aren't much good in mountains and forests nor against fortifications. The romans would've probably engineered their way out of this situation walling off italia from the east. Then decided to shift their army composition to skirmisher heavy and and thicker shields to be able to punish the enemy for not engaging.

The Romans had crossbows, ballistas, and scorpions pulled by horses called carroballistaes.

Round 2 the Mongols didn't have Subotai who almost perfected Chinese siege tactics

He could be referring to augustus.

They were shit at siege wtf

Why would the mongols beat Rome? They couldn't beat medieval Europeans who were less organized and poorly equiped compared to the legions. Mongol tactics seemed to have worked on the steps but nowhere else.

Mongols
For some reason Romans always lose against cavalry

Rome obviously.Mongols couldnt do shit against armors

>mongols who lived 1000 years later were more modern

in fact they werent

Jews

Mongols didn't really have a navy so they would get fucked hardcore if they ever reach the Italian peninsula

Because
>muh horse archers invincible troops
In reality, the Romans just rallied behind a defensive fortification, kept the Legion's centres solid with slingers, and if the force was eradicated to a point they could not hold a defensive position, the Romans would launch a counter-attack. This was strategy for beating horsearchers after Ventidius.

Mongolia, without question.
Roman legions got absolutely decimated by persians employing the same tactics and equipment as mongols.

It's not necessarily that though. For example, Finland is full of East Asian admixture even though the mongols didn't come this far. It comes from the fact that the original Finnish people themselves were mongoloids (note, not mongolians) and traveled all the way from the uralic regions to Finland. What I'm getting at is that many Russian slavs might have the East Asian admixture though similar background, though the mongolian presence was strong there so might also be just that.

Mongols were good at destroying soft targets; farmers, tents, wooden buildings. As soon as they reached terrain in which entrenchment, fortification, etc was possible, they would've ground to a halt. Sure, they could've attacked farms, but they didn't have the naval capacity to stop the cities from bringing in supplies from overseas. All the while, the Romans would just wait it out in their cities, bringing in mercenaries from the colonies, until they found something that worked against horsemen. I'm guessing elephants would've done the trick.

What are you talking about? The Romans were always massively more successful against heavy Persian-type cataphracts and Parthian horse archers which lacked mobility than say, Hannibal's Numidians.

the Mongol Empire didn't use force.

First of all you think mongol horses were like your fucking mountain of horse.They were little ponys capable of agility you cant even imagine.
Everything depends on the terrain.If its open terrain,mongols win without a question.If its a forested,mountainous terrain,romans win without a question.

Battle of Carrhae

Crossbowmen and mounted knights gave Subutai a lot of trouble during the mini-invasions of Poland, Hungary, and Vienna, and he mainly won those conflicts because he was a fucking genius and because Western Europe was poorly organized due to infighting, not because of any inherent superiority of Mongol units.

They conquered some very densely-populated parts of China without much trouble, and generals like Kublai Khan and Timur were good at demolishing cities.

How can indos even compete?

The Mongols actually could take down elephants.
They also sacked walled cities.
I don't think you realize how dangerous these guys were at the time.

>They conquered some very densely-populated parts of China without much trouble, and generals like Kublai Khan and Timur were good at demolishing cities.

Yeah, because in China, you just hold the farmland surrounding the city, and everybody starves, allowing you to take the city. That doesn't happen when an enemy has supply lines you can't interrupt without a navy.

Battle of Carrhae
Romans could never get a solid hold of Persia

> As soon as they reached terrain in which entrenchment, fortification, etc was possible,
Stop propagating the stupid muh plains myth. Mongols had the greatest siegecraft the world has seen and for centuries to come after them.

What you are also portraying is a defensive scenario. Romans had cities, but mongols could create a city anywhere and move it at will so they had the upper hand in this too.
Like persians just moved their settlements around the mountains and the cut the romans off in the valleys and plains.

They don't stand a chance

That's not fair. Khan armies also had chinese gunpowder.

Only feudalist tactics (big stone fortresses and scorched earth) stopped them.

Non-Leader jew banker leads army into the desert and decides to let the enemy surround him.

Why is the Jämtlands flag upside down?
reee

Which is why I've repeatedly mentioned the strategy employed after the Battle of Carrhae by Ventidius, which made it almost impossible for the Romans to be beaten by a cavalry only army. With the center of the Legion reinforced, and slingers to do, the Romans would rally & find behind a defensive fortification, until their horse archers own defensive position could not be held (almost impossible to do as horsearchers regardless) and then launch a counter-attack.
>
First of all you think mongol horses were like your fucking mountain of horse.They were little ponys capable of agility you cant even imagine.
That works against your point. An armoured horse means you lack mobility, an unarmoured horse makes you extremely prone to regular archers (and slingers) - one of the massive downfalls to using horsearchers in the first place.

>.If its open terrain,mongols win without a question
That's why after the Battle of Carrhae the Romans didn't fight open-field against horsearchers.

>without a question
Not at all.
Before Ventidius, the Parthians at Carrhae managed a cavalry-only victory against the Romans by placing their horse archers at the Roman flanks but avoiding a close-combat engagement by making constant feign retreats and firing Parthian shots. However, a serious Roman disadvantage in that battle was that they had no firepower (foot archers or slingers). They never made that mistake again, thus they were seldom beat by a cavalry-only army again.

Roman strong suit is fighting hand to hand head on at the enemy, just because they are that badass.
Unfortunately not alot of romans really likes fighting on horseback, meaning shitty mercinaries, or proffesional but low morale auxiliary units would be used.
But those auxiliaries were meant for rear charges and fighting other cavalry hand to hand.
Basically khan had a perfect counter with his army bulk all on horseback with a bow and arrow, which could kite a melee cav unit and foot units until they all died or until the romans put up testudo and wait until they ran out of ammo.
Its hard to say what Khans army could do in a head on fight if they ran out of missles.
They most likely would run away and nust claim victory from sheer amount of kills they brought.
This is speculation though.
They would never successfully take over Rome, and vice versa.
Romans are pragmatic and resourceful and would change army tactics to challenge this threat, after a few defeats.

That map looks strange, why would it copy the modern borders so well?

mongolia won against
>china
>russia
>indians
>turkics
>persians

romans won against
>some european and some mideastern stone-age'd peasants

so...

>Mongols had the greatest siegecraft the world has seen and for centuries to come after them.

Siege doesn't stop a horse from running into a pit. Siege doesn't remove guerilla fighters, as the Batavians and Celts were in the Roman legions. Siege doesn't allow the horde to easily cross mountain ranges, forests, or rivers.

>What you are also portraying is a defensive scenario.

Yeah, because that's how it used to go; Romans used to build up a strong military presence in an area, fortify there, and slowly take the area. Mongols just rode in and fucked shit up, without establishing fortifications first.

If this is a war (and not a battle) we're speculating on, then the Roman state allowed almost continuous production of Legions whenever they were beaten. I'd say a major point of what made the Romans so dominant was their ability to take a solid defeat.

Given how poorly the romans acted in Carhae I say it's obvious the khanz would win

In the beginning Mongols would win some battles but over time Rome would come out as a winner because of better organisation, more resources and technology (inb4 muhh strong mongolian bows).

Nigga the general who fought the parthians was a retard.
Ceaser was fighting and winning in Gaul when that happened.

Nope they didn't fight byzantium, it was 100% turkish territory at this time the part of Anatolia they annexed

Rome always wins in the end.

All major Roman defeats where because of bad leadership. If Julius Caeser was leading legions aginst the Mongols, Rome wins.

You're not going to have the Romans beat feudal Mongols, especially if the Romans had to be on the offense. Besides that, all the Mongols really would have to do is push the Great Migration early, which they'd likely do first than attack Rome.

>Boudicca
>a good measure of military power

Roman's favored opened field combat. They'd probably be successful if they use their alliances.

How would elephants work against archer horsemen?

Romans were shit at scouting. I'd imagine they'd get ambushed often.

mongolia won against
>china
nahh not really
>russia
not really
>indians
not really
>turkics
not really
>persians
not really

Did you not read what they did to the Persians?

>How would elephants work against archer horsemen?

They're really fucking big, can carry loads of armour, allowing them to essentially shrug off arrows. Most Mongols probably would've never seen them before, so the horses would panic. You take out the rider, and there's still a 1000 lbs of anger coming towards you.

> Romans were shit at scouting. I'd imagine they'd get ambushed often.

The Celts ambushed the Romans all the time, by working with the terrain. That's why those tactics were incorporated into the Roman army after they beat the Celts. That's one of the biggest strengths of the Romans vs. the Mongols; Mongols didn't do treaties/truces, while Romans started using tactics that were successfully used against them by adversaries.

Mongols wreck fortifications without issue.
But let's say romans sit on a strong fort mongols can't assault. If it's inland the mongols would cut off the supplies and wait the siege out. Mongols have more choice when choosing their battles since romans are restricted by their settlements.
There aren't enough romans to defend against the constant raids.


>Siege doesn't stop a horse from running into a pit.
Rarely anybody fell for such a stupid trick, especially not the mongols.
> Mongols just rode in and fucked shit up, without establishing fortifications first.
They didn't need forts at all. They fucked up Europe because they went against conventional thought of warfare. That's why you can't grasp their strength.

>mongol pony
>get scared
pick one.

Exactly, and when they did take a solid defeat, they didnt just throw more troops at the enemy and expect a victory.
Roman tactics changed as time wore on, and in the case they ever fought the mongols, on top of tactics against an all cav force thats already been in effect (i.e Ventidius) theyd most likely accept there was a flaw and adapt to the new threat.

Thats where you are wrong, romans strong suit is engeneering and fort building.
Mongols, despite terrain, would have a run for their money attacking roman forts.

>They're really fucking big, can carry loads of armour, allowing them to essentially shrug off arrows. Most Mongols probably would've never seen them before, so the horses would panic. You take out the rider, and there's still a 1000 lbs of anger coming towards you.
The mongols would lose 1 or 2 battles like this with minimal casualties.Then they would turn it around like romans did and fuck shit up. Btw horse don't panic from an elephant, it's the opposite.
And I'm pretty sure mongols knew about elephants from india and south china.

>They didn't need forts at all.

Fortifications was what got European warfare out of the dark ages. Fortifications were what stopped the whole 'go in at night and steal/burn/poison their shit'-warfare. Which was employed against the Romans quite successfully by Germanic and Celtic tribes.

The elephants would probably be panic before the Mongols. EXTREMELY prone to arrows. I don't need to mention how good of a target an elephant is to hit.
Then how come the Parthian horsearchers did not succeed in "wrecking" the fortifications "without issue"? (Stone fortifications at the The Battle of Cyrrhestica never the less). All you need to do is look at the Commander Ventidius I mentioned and his absolute dominance against horse archers. The hollow square... also his invention, to protect his artillery countermeasures. He was also the first commander to use mass slingers with lead. This method is what enabled Mark Antony's, relatively, successful campaign in Parthia.

Again, really interested in hearing how the Mongols would tackle a solid wooden fortification, never the less a stone one?

The Huns attacked the Romans at their weakeat and divided, and they still got BTFO in the end by the Roman-Germanic alliance.

>I don't need to mention how good of a target an elephant is to hit.

So is a mountain. Doesn't mean the arrow will do serious damage.