Rome vs Mongolia

The Roman Empire at its greatest extent under Emperor Trajan vs. The Mongol Horde under Genghis Khan. All out war.

Who wins?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe
phys.org/news/2016-05-bad-weather-mongols-sudden-retreat.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae

horse archers wreck infantry

Mongols would win and scatter Rome into the Winds. Only Britain would survive A Mongol invasion of Roman Europe.

People underestimate how hardcore Mongols were.

Crassus was a fucking idiot when it came to military matters tho.

the roman because they had spear and the mongols were almost exclusively horse riders

>dem digits
The Great Khan spoke through me.

Can someone with knowledge tell me how the fuck the Mongol Empire stayed together or even managed to be run? How does Mongolia have enough troops to control the entirety of China while also controlling Korea, Russia, Siberia, Persia, and Eastern Europe? How does communication even work in an empire that large?

False and false.

Nigga, Mongols had like 5-15x the population as rome, how the FUCK would Rome win?

Mongols could just send in a million soldiers and wait until the Romans ran outta arrows

Mongolia. Rome relied on sheer strength of ground troops and didn't have a massive cavalry, the tatars would just bow them to death from a distance, their short range cavalry would also be useless in chasing them

The legions were very resilient against mounted units and even more resilient against missiles.
Close call, but the Romans have an extensive defensive advantage against the type of might the mongols could bring to bear.

Genghis
Praise Tengri

Most of that empire was vast, open nothingness and tiny villages. Any major cities or whatever were under the "Misbehave and everyone fucking dies" rule.

Romans would get destroyed on the field by would win any siege hands down.

mongols had alot bigger numbers
so much so that they even BTFO Aryan tribes. From what I konw they had some Aryans or half Aryans under their command aswell, so it even adds to the equation

is this even a serious question?
sage

Probably depends on the theatre of operations. Mongols would presumably attack from the Eurasian steppe into European territory, but it's entirely possible that Roman fleets on the Rhine and the Danube could hold the crossings and stall the Mongols indefinitely. Then it likely depends on logistics, individual commanders, and luck.

The Mongols were a militaristic people. All males rode horses and fired bows. There was no peasant class, no agrarian society. Every man fought.

On open field Mongols would have the upper hand, but the point is that west Europe != steppe. Like Huns, they'd have more and more trouble the more west they advanced.

>Mongols had like 5-15x the population as rome, how the FUCK would Rome win?
thia can't be true

It doesn't
There's a reason the fucking thing collapsed almost instantly and nothing changed
Mongols win unless the Romans bust their ass out building fortifications everywhere, that's what the Hungarians did and they slaughtered the horse fuckers with it

Long spears and shield walls >>> cavalry? That's what I was taught at least.

that's a big empire

It could be true, because they controlled mesopotamia which was the most populous area of the time, but these people would be conquered people, not mongols.

Their were different Khans that handled different parts of the empire. They also incorporated local leaders, didn't try to erase the local culture and mustered troops from their conquered regions.
Concerning communication they build a huge network of streets with many stables so messengers could ride on fresh horses over the entire distance to deliver their message.
The fact that you automatically think Rome will take a defensive stance shows that the Mongols were more powerful.

4U

For you

>The fact that you automatically think Rome will take a defensive stance shows that the Mongols were more powerful.
More that it's impossible to actually attack Mongols because what do you attack? Their grass? They're fucking nomads.

...

Oh shit I just noticed they have China aswell, yeah mongols have millions more people

>Mongols win unless the Romans bust their ass out building fortifications everywhere, that's what the Hungarians did and they slaughtered the horse fuckers with it
Lol what the fuck are you talking about? The Hungarian army was decimated and Hungary was razed to the ground by the Mongol hordes. Sure, the Mongols left after a decade or so, but the consequences of the entire campaign was permanently seared into the Hungarian national consciousness. Only the conquest by the Turks and maybe the treaty of Trianon carry the same cultural trauma in Hungary.

Romans already lost against the Parthians who used similar tactics to the Mongols. I'd say that Rome could win in the long-run after big early defeats.

Conquer what they conquered. Thousands of cities. Or defeat their armies in battle. They weren't the kind to run away.

The fact that that is how you read it shows your unbridled bias.
You need to take in to account both offensive and defensive advantages when discussing might.
They are on par with each other more or less offensively. Defensively however? Not even close, Romans are stronger.

Mwx pop Mongol Empire = 110m
Max pop Roman Empire = 45m
You what son?

Not even close. Mongols would've sacked Rome completely just as the Visigoths and Ostrogoths did except with more Roman casualties and if they rebelled they would've been completely destroyed. Rome wouldn't be on the map.

Rome kicked the Parthians asses and sacked their capital various times though. It just never got to the point of having the logistics to start a massive campaign, something which was planned by both Caesar and I think Marcus Aurelius but were called back due to Caesar getting stabbed and Germanic rebellions.

Carrhae was Crassus doing the wrong thing as often as he could.

Mongols were experts at sieges. The Chinese had excellent fortifications and they still got btfo.
>They are on par with each other more or less offensively.
Not at all.

The barbarians you mention would have been wrecked if the Empire was at full strength. That's a dishonest comparison.

>mongols had alot bigger numbers
This is a myth based on faulty estimates by people that got btfo by the mongols. When you are losing a battle, in the depths of confusion and maneuvers by the enemy, it can seem like there's 10X more enemy than there actually are. There were never very many Mongols. They even had to bring a ton of Turkic horsenigger scum and Aryan horseniggers just to have usable armies.


>so much so that they even BTFO Aryan tribes.
The Sakas and their relatives tended to be disunited. Sakan/Sarmatian polities like the Yueji and the Hephthalites are notable exceptions.
>From what I konw they had some Aryans or half Aryans under their command aswell, so it even adds to the equation
Yes. Tribes that submitted to the Mongols then provided forces(if they were horseniggers) or got used as a tax base(if they were settled farmers). Much of the Mongol Army was Aryan Sakas/Sarmatians, although I believe the largest component was not Iranics but Turks.

Actualy that was where the end began. We never recovered after Muhi

Typical Huwhite response.

The mongols would’ve killed the Romans, but the Romans were a much more important and impactful empire due to their ability to build, not just destroy. The mongols were the niggers of empire.

Falsch du chuck...geh dich ficken lassen von nem afrikanischen migranten

>two of the strongest empires in history aren't on par with each other in might relative to their age
ISHYGDDT

cavalry was always a roman weakness.

Greatest chess player here.

Well Mongol golden era was mainly winning weak cities and farmers. Romans had actual naval force and decent routes that made their raids obsolete as it went close to Rome, due the capacity of more re-enforcement in no time.

Probably the Romans. The Mongols were proto-huns at the time. And the huns got btfo a few centuries later. The Turks are also descended from the mongols. All three of these races were if the same stock and have led to red China, the Turks and part of the Muslim world, as well as the real history of the jews who are objectively the worst race on the planet and must be exterminated for there to be anything resembling peace. That goes for anybody of Judeo-Turks-Mongol stock

Mongol Empire didnt reach Baltics you fucking idiots

Turks are Seljuk not related to Mongols.

Mongols were fast, locust-like swarms of parasites, not true rulers.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe

Mongols. 1000 year tech advantage

>Mongols were proto-huns
Wut?
Huns were 4th to 6th century. Mongols were around the 12th century or so.

Schlagfertige Argumente. Hast mich überzeugt. Übrigens müsstest du nicht schon im Bett sein?
>thinking playing Rome 2 makes you an expert
The Romans' expansion was slow. Their offensive capabilites were nowhere near the ones of the mongols. They build their empire over time.

Here's to you and your burger education

They are though

>Turanianism
>2018
>believing the old Ural-Altaic crap just because they both use agglutinative grammar
>2018
Oh boy, let me laugh at you EVEN HARDER

the mongols would have wiped the floor with rome, but that's not saying much. its apples and oranges

>Who wins?
Roman Ungern Von Sternberg

In open battle the Mongol horde would win hands down.

at the same time Rome would see this and would opt out of fighting such a battle.

Caesar for example was well known for implementing structures in his battle plans. his legions could construct huge fortifications in little to no time. structures that half the time shocked the Gauls into subservience.

The Romans never really faced the Mongols in any serious way and as a result we have no idea how they would have adapted. nor do we know how the mongols would have adapted to Roman strategies.

I think the war would eventually be won by rome though. why didnt the mongol horde push into Europe harder? they met something they couldn't handle obviously or they would have kept going. and this was well after Rome had lost its edge. if they had hit Europe in its hay day? there is no way.

the Romans were masters of conquering land and then establishing total control over it. Mongols were masters of going somewhere, fucking the place up, and leaving. they didnt have the systems set up to maintain the lands they had conquered.

Only because commanders are retarded a lot of the time.
Marching out into a field to fight a bunch of manlets on horses while you are an army of manlets on foot is only going to end with corpses and a mongol army able to march freely.
The better strategy is to make them come for you rather than you come for them. Romans should have learned that after The battle of Canae.

Delet this

This.

>why didnt the mongol horde push into Europe harder? they met something they couldn't handle obviously or they would have kept going.
phys.org/news/2016-05-bad-weather-mongols-sudden-retreat.html
Hiding behind city walls didn't help anyone against the mongols.

This

The Mongols conscripted locals as they went. So, Chinese, Iranians, Indians and etc forming a variety of units, and the difference in technology leads me to lean mongols

Mongols ofc but the empire collapses after the death of khan.

no. the mongols were the best around at sieges. listen to dan carlins podcast about the mongols.

Rome. It would all come down to supply lines and organizations. The Mongols were not much more advanced then the german hordes. A horde is awesome, but hard to field for a long time, and incredibly easy to break apart with superior tactics. It would not be pretty but I am sure Rome would eventually come out on top.

Didn't the Romans have their asses handed to them by steppe peoples, even without Genghis Khan leading them? So Mongol Horde gets my vote

>In open battle the Mongol horde would win hands down.

Lol? Romans were also great in open battle.

Which is what the Romans were really good at. Most of what they did during war was engineering.

Rome civilized Britain. Your capital is a Roman city.

That was when Rome was more immigrant then Roman. I think we have to look at this as both at peak power.

exactly. the mighty mongol horde was repulsed by some bad weather? I mean come on.

I mean to be honest they were a flare up. and it wasn't like they were fighting anyone worth a damn anyway. to this day the bulk of their "empire" remains a desolate wasteland. the major population centers they ran into formed the edges of their empire.

so yes. they were a great fighting force but it takes more than that to win a war and sustain said empire.

coz they burnt down all the land they conquered
it's a lot easier to rule empty fields and ruins than to rule over populous cities and unruly tribes

You can't seriously believe that Rome fell to a bunch of nomadic barbarians at the height of its power.

The old capital was a Roman city. It got burned to the ground by Boudica and eventually became a military prison.

Mongols of course, what a dumb question. Romans don't even exist anymore.

And how did that work out for Britain?

1. Intimidation. The Mongols killed more people as a % of the population than all sides on WWII combined. Iran's population didn't reach pre-Mongol levels until the 19th century. With those kinds of massacres in store, people preferred to be obedient rather than all die.

2. Incorporating locals. The Mongol army was full of Chinese and Iranian infantry and engineers, and administration at a local level was kept mostly in tact, once the people who had offended the Mongols had been killed and replaced with Mongols on top.

3. Mongols were seriously fast on those horses of theirs.

To OP, this belong on /his/, but a. that isn't the Romans at their height since they reached into modern day Iraq under Trajan and b. the Mongols had control of Syria. In any event, Mongols win easily, they have significantly more resources to call upon, the Romans would not have been able to handle the Mongols (because nobody was able to do that, even if the Romans eventually learned how to deal with the Huns, the Huns just weren't as good) and the Mongols had significantly more modern weapons to use against the Romans. This thread is retaded. sage.

Mesopotania had more population than mediterranean + europe? How was mediterranean then more advanced?

Mongols never conquered Belarus and got BTFO'd by the Lithuanian Duchy pretty good. Your image is wrong faggot.

>The Mongols were not much more advanced then the german hordes.
>coz they burnt down all the land they conquered
Burger education everyone.
>environment is not that important in warfare
read some sun tzu, mate.

Mongolia

They have better technology more people and a slew of other stuff.

>The Roman Empire at its greatest extent under Emperor Trajan vs. The Mongol Horde under Genghis Khan. All out war. Who wins?

jews

It must suck when some random ass mongols just came out of nowhere, razed your empire and then disappeared just as fast never to be seen again in history of mankind.

At least you get to keep a piece of them in your DNA.

>Muh horse archer can defeat anything meme
Come on brainlets,horse archers afore great when fighting against retards but with a demi competent commander (and chances are Rome had one thanks to tradition and military manuals) they could easily bloc the invading army at some point and simply out shoot the fuck out of them with foot archers that not only outreach them but can be protected behind shields and carry unlimited ammo.
They could build great encampments to avoid most of the hit and run spbullshit and the flanking.
If they could last in conflict for a decade or longer till the khan died and the successors started backstabbing each other then it would be golden (Rome was more stable than the horse nigger mad max larper warband)


Mongol bias.
This

You were taught wrong. Horse archers are the pinnacle of military tech until gunpowder.

no doubt. Let me rephrase.

The romans were god damned beasts when they were fighting in the style they and their neighbors were accustomed to. that is battle formations and most people on foot. they could handle barbarians left and right all day every day and did so on a regular basis. their structure and ability to martial troops in the battle field is undeniable.

but the Gauls didn't have cavalry, and even if they did the Romans had far better cavalry. the mongol cavalry was extraordinary. Ive read up on their cavalry and it makes the native american riders of not long ago look like children riding a pony at the circus. fun fact, it is thought that the "centaur" of legend may be based on ancient mongol type people riding horses since the rider and horse would almost act as one. they grew up on a horse and they just new everything there was to know about being cavalry archers.

that being said they usually did best against untrained groups of soldiers that would give chase after the horde and would be outflanked and shot the fuck up. the Romans would likely have stood their ground and not fallen for such tactics.

at the onset though im sure a few legions would have had their asses handed to them by these wild horse people shooting arrows at them. it would be the equivalent of a modern day ground troops going up against people in racecars that could lean out the window and snipe your ass with deadly accuracy at 1000 yards. it would be difficult to deal with at first just because of the shock of seeing such insanity.

after you see what they are doing though you quickly realize they need to get off their horse to actually rule over you, so you just build some walls and wait for them to get bored and terrorize someone else.

thats why their empire lasted less than 100 years and Romes lasted forever.

Depends on the place I think. On an open field Romans would get ravaged by Mongols. But if Romans had some walled off cities of ramparts I think they'd win.

Implying the mongols would fight a conventional war instead of breaking into multiple tulmans and wrecking the countryside for 5 or 6 years until everyone but the nomads who live on horse blood and goatcheese starve to death.

Rome because their empire doesn't crumble in 2 seconds

...

what? of course its important. but bad weather would not have repulsed the roman empire in the least. they were more intelligent in their planning. the horde had no planning except to rampage around and see what happened. I mean its not like mongolia is a tropical paradise. they had shit weather there too. so to say they couldnt handle a cold winter in europe seems like a pretty fatal flaw in their plan.

It did crumble though, and Mongolians are still alive and well. lol

Rome. All they have to do is slash and burn and retreat everything in the mongol path for like a month then fortify fortresses in mountain passes with mangonels and fire bomb throwers and ballistas.

GG