@@HannibalBarca-jv4px not a chance Mongols were Lucky in their time and used it at their full potential. China was having crisis and after them they decided to go for weaker region of Middleast which are already started to break down and the only reason Abbasid caliphate hadn't fallen before is because they were respected as city of knowledge. You forgot how Mongols didn't even dare to fight in South Asia and when they did they were blown off. With that we can safely assume Mongols offensive behaviour wouldn't have been able to defeat the Roman at their peak or stable state.
@@adib4573 You mean that Khiwarzian Empire was a weak part of Asia 😅. They had a massive Army compared to Mongols. Mongols didn,t defeat Dehli Sultanate of India because they were highly focoused on China and Western Asia. We Know what Timur Tamerlane did to the Dehli and Ottomon Empire. Same Ottomon Empire which defeated Combined European Armys many times. Timur Army wasn,t as strong as Mongol Hordes
@@HannibalBarca-jv4px Khwarezmian empire had a smaller army than the Mongols, and their fortifications were still devastated by war. The Song dynasty of China outlasted the Mongol empire. It wasn’t conquered until after their empire fragmented, and Kublai had formed the Yuan dynasty. Typically, combined European armies defeated the Ottomans,l. Not to mention in their early history the Ottoman armies were primarily horse nomads like the Mongols.
I don't feel like it's fair. If you're going to compare two empires that existed almost 800 years apart, then you have to either make Rome have the technology of the time or have the Mongols have the technology of the Time of Rome.
He literally states the reason they would win was because of the technological advantage they would have because they existed so far apart quit bullshitting
@@epistemologyphilosophy7791 I feel that if Rome was at its apex, there's no reason that Rome couldn't have adapted to the Mongols, they were notorious for their adaption skills.
@@HenryofSkalitz-ug8rc the invention of the composite bow? That can fire up to 850 meters accurately? Or the first historical usage of gunpowder in the form of hand grenades?
@@HenryofSkalitz-ug8rc the mongols used trebuchets, they would have a massive advantage in siege-craft and Roman fortifications would be turned to dust. cavalry? Mongols have composite bowmen. fortifications? The mongols have hundreds of years worth of technological advancements in siege craft. Maybe if it comes down to a contest between infantry in terrain that suits the romans but even then that’s a toss up because ancient metallurgy is nothing in comparison to what the mongols had. To go even further it’s even demonstrable in history that Roman legions struggle under the pressure of horseback archery, we know this from when Crassus tried to do a campaign in Parthia and failed miserably.
“Could Belgium have defeated Rome?” “Well, they have tanks, automatic weapons, jet fighters, helicopters, satellite communication and know everything about the roman’s battle tactics from history books. Yes! The Belgians could defeat the Romans!”
@@ziyanmehdi8113 I think you forget how much advancements were made in those thousand years. A nation as large as Belgium in the medieval age could have crushed a Roman army.
The huns also faced a massivly weaker Rome that was already dying for a long time. Even without the Huns they would have had another hundred years at best
And Romans didnt win Catalunian Battle. It was a stelemate and no one won. Huns defeated Romans lots of times. They came to Rome and Pope begged for mercy. And the migration period ended with the seperation of Romans. And those migraters were Huns.
This is highly assuming that Rome wouldn't adapt to fight the mongols. And one thing we know is that when Rome lose they always come back with more tricks up their sleeves
@@Dr_Diaz And there’s a reason the Romans survived until 1453 while the Mongols shattered upon Gengis’ death. Mongols were a great empire don’t get me wrong but the Romans didn’t build their empire without punching death in the face a few times every century. Edit: For any future readers to stop replying to a finished Argument, I already gave up this point several months ago and yes I know that his Grandson held it together however the fact remains that it split after 4 rulers and one civil war.
@@jhonjhon3715 sorry fanboy, but Rome stands no chance.. we are talking about a difference of almost a thousand years in technology advancement of warfare here.
@@dortmundgrabenstein9193 Just telling the the truth, the Mongolian Empire fell apart in 1368 A.D, the Roman Empire officially fell in 1453 A.D with Constantinople.
@@subhammukherjee6863 Mongols wouldn't change any genetics. Almost the entire Mongol army would be made of Europeans and Caucasians rallied against the Romans, led by a handful of Mongol commanders with maybe some Arab/Persian engineers.
@@swewunna y'know, I've been lying awake every night for the past 3 months thinking about this, thank you for this answer, I didn't even think of coming at it from that angle _🙏_
@@shenzhendrake2429 are you on something? I can def give the armor piercing arrow thing but like half of their tech was shit stolen from other people and they didn’t use cannons or at least didn’t use them a lot nor did they use much gunpowder
@@sunshineroses7984 rome couldn't even conquer partheon empire, but mongols fought empires five times bigger and more advance than they are. its clear genghis khan will napalm firebomb rome for fun.
@@Son.Gohan3 Chinese warriors oh my belly in history mongols win the battle against china more than 100+ chinese win battle against mongols what 10+ hahahahhaha
@@stdona 100+? you are dreaming? The Jurchens of the Jin Dynasty enslaved the Mongols for 100 years and implemented the policy of massacring men for 100 years. Temujin's grandfather and father both died of the Jurchens, so Temujin particularly hated the Jurchens. Genghis Khan mobilized all his troops and Khans and even sacrificed Temujin's life without attacking the Jin Dynasty. In the end, Ogedai and the Song Dynasty joined forces to defeat the weakened Jin Dynasty. However, the Yuan Dynasty lasted less than 100 years, and during the Yuan Dynasty, ordinary Mongolians had no choice but to work as slaves for the Han people. In the late Yuan Dynasty, there was even a law prohibiting Mongolians from continuing to be slaves. Ordinary Mongolians were more happy to see the Yuan Dynasty perish. When the Yuan Dynasty perished, ordinary Mongolian people worked with the Ming Dynasty people to overthrow the Yuan Dynasty. When the Ming Dynasty was established, there was even an army composed of Mongolians. The Qing Dynasty ruled the Mongols seriously for 300 years, and carried out a hundred years of genocide against the Mongols. The number of Mongolians dropped sharply from 6 million at the beginning of the Qing Dynasty to 800,000 at the end of the Qing Dynasty.
I dont think so, the jin dynasty in china was a superpower with over 1 million soldiers with advancement over rome by 1000 years, yet genghis khan annihilated them, rome will be much easy.
@@TheChosen2030 I’m not sure I understand this logic fully.. assuming the Roman Empire would have remained in its prime, would they not have advanced technologically as time went on as well?
Europe is tiny compared to china Indian and south east Asian, but tiny cold Europe with luck copy chines tech gun power conquest half of the world. Chines alone bigger than Europe in military and population, but Europe survived because of luck. I will said mong will win. In Rome peak it has 50 to 70 million population, in Mongolia it has 100 million population. Mongolia in a short times kill 40 million people. That will 70 to 80 percentage of peak Rome empire.
@@chaos5104 ok but again you are comparing way different time periods.. as time progresses populations tend to increase… at one time Rome was over around a 25% of the worlds population. So as they grew, so would their population. Also mongols relied heavily on essientially blitzkrieg tactics. Part of what made that successful was they were able to move so fast and raid villages for food and fodder for their animals… under Roman rule, most places were not set up this way. Romans would hold out in a fort, stall the mongol advances, force their logistics to become problematic, counter attack, take over. Romans would also have understood that a single man was holding together the mongol empire (whereas Roman rule could survive a “bad emperor”) Roman offensive strategy may have been to take out the leader of the Mongols and watch them disintegrate. At their height no one played the intrigue game better than the Romans. I could go on, but I believe Roman’s had many advantages in a war against the Mongols. I definitely believe they would have beaten the mongols at their height if they advanced simultaneously with the mongols… and to be honest I believe they would have beaten the mongols if they entered a time machine and were transported to the age the mongols were with their technology… especially if they were led by Julius Caesar, Augustus, Trajan, Aurelian, Constantine, or Belisarius (if we are counting the Byzantines). Heck I would even put up a Vespasian or Majorian or even non Roman emperor Stillicho against Ghengis or Subutai
One Modern soldier with a Gun cannot launch a Nuke, He can't use a Tank because that requires an entire Tank Crew to operate it. A Modern SOLDIER with a GUN means it's not a Pilot either.
there is also good arguments that early roman armies at around 2nd century BC were better suited for war than the armies they wielded in the 4th and 5th centuries
It depends. Roman armies from the 4th century onwards were far more cavalry-heavy and had much more anti-cavalry measures. The roman empire even continued this line of development through the middle ages, and was the first to widely adopt pikemen in land battles in europe after the macedonian phalanx fell out of use.
@@hilebardThe eastern roman empire is the roman empire. The term ”Byzantium” was made up by the holy roman empire because they didn’t like that the mighty roman empire had been conquered by muslim turks. They also wanted to be the only nation with rome in its name. People like you are going to continue being easily brainwashed and manipulated by others around you.
I'm fond of the history of that region (I'm from it after all) and didn't know that, as far as I know and I don't recall there was a major campaign from the Mongols toward the Romans in fact I don't think they even shared a borders considering the Seljuks were between them.
@@ytweirdgameryt6907 they are some people believe that the Roman empire died with Alexios V but nevertheless the Nicaeans were inherted the authority of Constantinople and even still I don't recall that the Nicaeans shared borders with the mongols
@Unfriendly atheist I am the punishment of God... If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you. Genghis khan
And yet they fought on, subutai, when passing through the Caucasus after a lengthy, disconnected campaign, then fought all the Russian thiefsdoms armies and won, returning to mongolia after to tell them of Europes weakness
Well.. the huns that are let by atilla almost crashed the Romans even though they lost to the war they put the Romans in the weakest state of their history compared to the huns Mongols had a way better tactics and man power
When you say "Rome" what part of the 500 year Unified and Western Empire are you talking about? Oh near the end when the whole thing was crumbling? Ok, that seems fair.
@The Great Chinggis Khaan Carthage had great generals. Carthage fell, it's lands were salted, and it's existence is little more than a story. The Mongol empire lasted what 200 years IF we are generous and round up to the nearest 100?
@@joejoelesh1197 we are talking about the military. Whether the Roman Empire lasted for 500 yrs or less, it doesn’t matter. I personally think the Mongols would win because of tech gap and the use of horse archers.
Yeah it’s so weird when people compare Rome vs someone & 9/10 they always bring up when the western empire was on its last legs… you could do this for almost any empire ever. Should only use peak Rome around 100AD, or in this case it should be the eastern Roman Empire since the west fell literally almost 1000 years before the mongol empire came to be
@@prime4851 it certainly matters. It gives the mongols literally hundreds of years of technology advancements. Why even use the western Roman Empire that died millennium before the mongols, when the Eastern Roman Empire was alive & kicking until almost 1500AD
@@Riskijay55 Carthage was a merchant civilization. Most of their soldiers were merceneries. It was basically like Swiss going up against British Empire at its peak. Not a chance.
Barbarization thesis is literally nonsense propagated by Gibbon and Mommsen. Even in 476 the foederati were somewhere between 25 and 33 percent of Roman forces in the West. That number had been stable for over 200 years by the way, during the Dominate under Diocletian and Constantine the army was somewhere between a quarter and a third foederati.
@@arandomtasmaniandevil199 Rome itself was a grand military powerhouse and it would by far no easy fight for the mongals but combined with superior numbers, technology and things considered entirely unfathomable to the Imperial Era Romans, the firm advantage would be in the hands of the Mongols.
The Turko-Mongolian military tradition of Central Asia is truly immense. This culture extracted the greatest military geniuses of history from that savagery.
@@JOSWAY787 There are three military masterminds in entire human history: Alexander The Great, Genghis Khan, and Tamerlane. Two of them are Mongolian and Turkic.
And fought to essentially a stalemate. Assuming that comparison is accurate, and accounting for the technological advancements made between the peak of the Western Roman Empire and the Mongol Empire, it may be safe to assume a similar outcome. Similar to the Battle of Catalaunian Plains between the weakening Western Roman Empire and the Huns as well, although both sides relied heavily on alliances.
@@roycekimmel It's not. It was a humiliating defeat of Rome. Rome got off easy with the death of Parthia's general and the ensuing weakening within. Also, both Parthia and Mongols might rely heavily in mounted archers but that's where the comparison end. Parthia is a sedentary empire, Mongols are nomads. Mongols were bred for warfare from childhood especially the mongols from Genghis's time, where tribes were at constant war with each other and China. The later "mongols" were weaker and adapted sedentary lifestyle.
Mongols were not that technologically superior to the huns. Huns were horse archers, mongols were horse archers, instead mongols had more capable leaders and much more brutality.
@@roadent217of course, but in 260 Roman Empire was become a Joke. Despite that They destroyed the sassinid capitals Ctésiphon after the defeat of Valérien.
@@Rorschach7012 The west gives respect where it's due. The Mongols and the Persian civilization are testament to that. India on the other hand has no feats to glorify besides being a divided kingdom overthrown by foreign powers and being absolutely thrashed by the west. Why would they respect something/somebody they absolutely ransacked over a few centuries? You Indians cry a lot about your past and today your children (prolly you too) would jump at the first offer to settle abroad. Pathetic.
I'd say the Romans would, at the very least, have a fighting chance. Even before the Huns, Rome had been fighting the Parthian (and later Sassanian) empire whose military forces were mainly reliant on their cavalry. They had Horse Archers and Heavy Cataphracts, similar to what Mongolian Cavalry forces would have been made up of. The experience and tactics that the Romans have gained from fighting Parthia could prove to be useful against a Mongol invasion
The Mongols took most of Asia and half of Europe plus they had gun powder and the Mongols would spread the black death to the Romans using dead bodies and slinging them over the walls
No their experience didn't do much when they faced the Rashidun Arabs and will not help facing the Mongols either. Their tactics and their use and composition of cavalry is not the same . Mongol army is very different than the Persians
The Catalonian fields was the basically the only time they defeated the Huns. The Huns ravaged and beat the breaks off the Romans for nearly 200 years.
Khalid ibn Walid - Sword of God - was the best military commander that step up on the battlefield. Crushing every army on his way, he remained undefeated and he done that against world superpowers who had superior numbers and equipment, and who ruled the world for 1000 years.
Yeah, like centuries of decline, bitter civil wars, several plagues, political instability and so on. Not to mention the ever present danger and regular skirmishes with Gauls and religious tensions. All of these things contributed to Rome's state over the course of centuries. In a sense, the horsemen were just opportunists and were never central to Rome's decline.
@The east are you really asking me this? Go, read about the mongols and then compare them with the Romans. Forget subutai, even inexperienced mongol general would have defeated ceasar probably because Romans troops were nowhere near the mongol horse archers who were also more tougher than Romans because they led a very difficult life. Remember how a single hunnic tribe which came out of Mongolia wrecked havoc in the Roman empire like nobody could do, not even the Germanic tribes. It was only on tribe which migrated towards west and they even subdued the Germanic tribes too lol and here you are asking me how 'subutai would have defeated ceasar'.
@The east one of the hunnic tribe moved towards west and one moved towards central Asia. It was a single tribe yet managed to subdue the Germanic tribes, the same people Romans could not subdue for so long and at las the germanics even took over. Moreover they literally wrecked havoc in all of the Roman empire. They were finally defeated but they were a single tribe out of Mongolia and they were nowhere near the mongols. Mongols had perfected the art of horse archery. As far as parthians are concerned, they were taken over by another Persian empire so it is not exactly defeating them. The empire's name changed but they were same people, the iranic. In fact Persian empires most of the times did far better than Romans. Anyways, I am not gonna argue with you over this roman-mongol war because it never happened and you can believe whatever you want.
The thing about the late Roman Empire is that it was a period with low birth rates which favor Calvert army’s, not Infantry army since the cost of training a horsemen is offset by the birth rate. This made Huns easily better. And with Atilla being as smart as Ghengis, if it came down to. High birth rate period, Rome would have easily won. Just see Hannibal to their reaction to a conqueror.
One of Rome’s great strengths was they took a very pragmatic approach to war. If something didn’t work anymore they replaced it. If they discovered a method that worked better used by a different culture they either hired practitioners or stamped out a Roman copy. It must not be ignored that they also used the internal conflicts of enemy groups against them. Breaking up other coalitions or at least busying them with damage control. If they found that light cavalry with horse archers was the only way then they would have definitely adopted those forces.
@pm the Romans did beat other steppe based horse warriors. Since Ghengis Khan lived 1162 - 1227 or so I should hope they would since the Eastern Roman Empire “fell” centuries earlier. The Mongols didn’t even invade Italy during their invasion of central and Eastern Europe from 1230-1240.
@@vijayvijay4123 well they beat them in Armenia and their assault against them in Mesopotamia ended with the sack of Ctesiphon in 165. Moot point since the Parthians were usually too busy killing each other until the Sasanians overthrew their princes and ended their empire. Ardashir I, ruler of Istakhr in Persis, revolted against the Arsacids and killed their last ruler, Artabanus IV, in 224 AD.
How!? They would need to be able to recruit these people from somewhere. You march to war with the soldiers you have which are recruited from the citizenry you have. Things like Pike and Shot would have been absolutely obvious for the romans to adopt if they could get their hands on the tech needed for it. But horse archers backed by heavy horse? No. Just not possible.
Contest Is king as Always. In the asian steppe where mongols could use at his fullest the tactict of the faint retreat, every Roman legions would be easily annihilated. In Europe where when you don't have that much space as in Asia things would have gone totally different, in fact mongols army started to have their First defeats in Europe.
Mongols got their first battle defeat in Palestine, and nowadays Vietnam, they didn’t lose in Europe. And actually they lost with the same faint retreat tactics against mamluks
This is no argument ! Romans were trained mainly for hand to hand combat . The Mongols were experts in killing enemies from several tens of yards away . A battle between the two would have been a one sided slaughter
Are you ok in the head buddy? First, when the romans faced the huns the western empire was already weak and in the brink of collapsing and they still managed to defeat them. Second, the Eastern Roman Empire was still around the time of the Mongols so the Mongols didn't have a "1000 years of technological advancements".
@@sophiecaddel5793 in 115 Traian conquered whole Mesopotamia and won many battles against the persians. But surely the romans also lost many battles against them. So all in all it's hard to say who was better.
@@sophiecaddel5793 the battle of Carthae happened in 53 BC. And the Parthians used heavy cavarly, the Mongols used flexible cavarly. In the time of Mongols the Eastern Roman Empire was no longer an only infantry army, it was a combination of infantry and cavarly. You are comparing a 2000 years Rome when the ERE was around the time of the Mongols, the ERE still outlived the Mongol Empire.
@@sophiecaddel5793 the Romans were defeated at Carrhae because of Crassus' incompetence. Likely, a more skilled Roman general would fight the Mongols effectively
Forgot to mention that, Rome had to unite with their “barbarian” enemies to defeat Attila and the Huns. Afterwards the barbarian allies noticed Rome was weakened, due to in fighting and from the Hunic invasion. Encouraging them to destroy and sack the western part of Rome. While in the East Rome would continue to exist until the Ottoman Turks would destroy it in 1453.
Nah. The Roman Empire that the Huns fought was a shadow of itself under the likes of Theodosius. Because of the Rule of Hanorius, the Empire was split in two and severely weakened by civil war and Barbarian invasions. Had Stilicho been around, the Empire wouldn't have been nearly as badly eroded as it was when the Huns arrived. The Huns beat poorly led Roman armies which lacked the recruiting base and fiscal capacity to replenish losses as well. This enabled the Hunnic successes of the later 400s. Considering how the Parthians faired against the romans, I don't see how the Mongols would do much better under a Rome with a good Emperor.
The Huns fought the Romans at possibly a time when Rome as at its weakest. There is no way that the Mongols would be able to defeat the Romans at their prime.
@@Rorschach7012 lol in your wildest dreams buddy. The Macedonians crushed you, and the Romans pretty much made mincemeat out of the Macedonians. And if you have forgotten the Romans have already beaten the Huns who were at their prime. So history severely disagrees with you.
@@thejediknight203 Macedonian crushed us? Lol Macedonians fought with a small vassal state pal, Alexander seriously injured in that campaign, almost loosing his life, Greeks didn't celebrated the victory of Gaugamela but they celebrated this one, Alexander himself said it was his toughest battle he ever fought, Alexander and his army refused to invade further because of fear that they will face a huge army, you need to read history that written by the greeks themselves buddy, after Alexander, the greeks came after him couldn't even succeed, the greeks plead maurya dynasty not to invade westward and offered a Macedonian princess. Read history dude. Not just Roman, the whole of roman alliance defeated the huns, romans couldn't defeat the huns single handedly.
@@Rorschach7012 I have a degree in history and a diploma in archaeology. My specialty Is ancient history. I know what I am talking about. I would suggest you go do some more research and then try and tell me I am wrong, but then again. You won’t see past your nationalistic pride and how it blinds you to the facts of history.
Hum, that's not how any of this works. If you want to take into account that Mongols were a millennium later, you also must acknowledge that these would face the Romans from a thousand years later in you hypothetical scenario.
That would be fairer but the Physical Biology of both of them would make it unfair The Romans assumed they adapted to Huns Raids would still have trouble The Huns could kill you with a Bow and arrow to the head from 400 meters Away with not much problem The Mongols would do the same thing from 2000 meters away with not much problem 2000 meters is as far as a Roman man could see but the Mongols would notice the Romans before the Romans would notice them so a surprise attack would be very effective The Romans would lose the majority of the Battles and the only real way they could survive is if they consent to the Demands the Mongols are giving them, like probably handing over all of Anatolia, Crimea, Hungary Romania, and Bulgaria and paying tribute Which the Mongols wanted the Holy Roman Empire and to do
@@Scankarl hey where on earth can you accurately shoot a bow and arrow a mile away, the technology difference wasn’t really all that different between Rome and the Huns, also most of Europe was using bows by the time the Roman’s fell and that wasn’t one of the reason why they fell, the Mongolians controlled a lot of land but they collapsed after one person died, god for bud he gets killed in battle or dies of a disease in souther Europe they would immediately lose.
I agree with you, the mongols would defeat the Romans because: 1: the mongol army was mainly cavalry light and heavy which would frustrate the Romans who always had trouble facing fast cavalry units as in the battle of carrhae. 2: the mongols were also technologically advanced. They used lamellar armour which is lighter than chain mail and gave more protection. And they were experts in siegecraft because they learned from the Abbasid caliphate after conquering iraq. 3: the mongols also used superior tactics.
@The east Did They beat them simply just by outliving them ? Do you know how many times the Romans were defeated by them ? Anastasian war, Iberian war, Lazic war All won by the Sassanids and the Romans were forced to pay heavy tributes each time The last Sassanid Byzantine war was more like a statement and even the Byzantines lost 2/3 of their territories to the Arabs Even Belisarius, the best Byzantine general was defeated several times by the Sassanid Battle of Thannuris 528 (defeated) Battle of Mindouos 528 (defeated) Battle of Dara 530 (won) Battle of Callinicum (defeated) Battle of Nisibis (stalemate, Belisarius failed to conquer Nisibis) Siege of Sisauranon (failed to conquer the fortress) Bahram Gur also fought the Romans to a stalemate Why not talking about the Roman armies that were crushed by the Sassanids before Heraclius joined the war ? Hell, even he was heavily defeated once or twice before the Sassanids conquered Egypt Watch History Experience video Roman armies were defeated left and right One of Shapur II small armies defeated a much larger Roman army at the battle of Samarra 363 and killed emperor Julian by shoving a spear in his chest After that, the Sassanids took Armenia, 15 fortresses and western Mesopotamia Check out Perso Roman peace treaty of 363 which was a humiliation for Rome and made up for the Sassanid defeat at Satala Before that, he conquered Amida and even though he was forced to retreat at the battle of Singara, he returned at night and defeated emperor Constantine II in a night attack and retook his camp and the Romans were forced to retreat During Julian's campaign, Shapur II defeated the second army of Julian in Armenia Shapur I defeated 3 Roman emperors and even captured one of them Each of their armies had between 60,000-70,000 men and he raided over 30 Roman cities and he had less soldiers than the Romans He won the battle of Misiche (60,000 Romans), battle of Barbalissos (60,000 Romans), battle of Edessa (70,000 Romans) and siege of Dura Europos and even plundering over 30 Roman cities all of this while always being outnumbered 2-1 His father Ardashir I defeated the Romans at the siege of Nisibis 235 and his forces raided Cappadocia and Syria and conquered Armenia Watch Yore History video about him, he also defeated two Roman armies in Mesopotamia, one were led by emperor's general and the other one was led by emperor Alexander Severus himself and both were defeated The sack of Ctesiphon isn't a big deal since it was like 2 or 3 cities away from the eastern borders of Rome And pre islamic Iranian empires had multiple capitals not just one Odenathus failed to take Ctesiphon and was defeated at the battle of Ctesiphon 263 Before Narse was defeated, he defeated Romans at the battle of Carrhae 296 and also in two other battles and inflicted heavy casualties on the Romans and if he had won one last time, the Romans would've been completely defeated that year Odenathus didn't even fought Shapur's army in a battle he just attacked him from behind while he was already going back to Iran and still, Shapur kept most of his men, prisoners, plunders and loots He even had the time to raid Syria after this clash with Odenathus which means Odenathus forces suffered heavy casualties and couldn't stop Shapur at the time even after that clash I know you guys say Shapur lost the conquered territories but the fact is he didn't because he wasn't conquering he was just raiding The Iranians didn't went as far as the heartland of Rome but when did the Romans ? Mesopotamia was as far as they could go and it wasn't even the heartland of Iran There were a lot of Iranian kings who were present during the battles and there were a lot of times that they were victorious and Romans never could catch or kill them but they could kill one or two Roman emperors and capture one alive Emperor Valerian was captured, emperor Philip the arab was humiliated and forced to pay heavy tribute and emperor Gordian III was defeated and probably killed in battle against Shapur Yazdegerd II raided Roman cities and the Roman emperor was forced to pay him heavy tribute Khosrow I raided the Roman territories and the Iranians raided Antioch several times Kavad I and his son Khosrow I defeated the Romans several times at three series of wars in a raw (The three wars i mentioned at first) The Parthians gained great victories too Battle of Carrhae, Romans lost even though they outnumbered the Parthians more than 4-1 and after that, they plundered the cities of Judea, Syria, and southern Anatolia two times Mark Antony Atropatene campaign, half of 127,000 were killed by the Parthians and the Parthians had only 50,000 The Parthians also won at the battle of Rhandeia and inflicted a heavy defeat on the Romans Trajan attacked when the Parthians were in a civil war and still lost all the conquered cities to Iranian peasant rebels and even during Trajan's invasion, the Parthians gained some victories Trajan failed to take Hatra, which avoided a total Parthian defeat. Parthian forces attacked key Roman positions, and Roman garrisons at Seleucia, Nisibis and Edessa were evicted by the local populaces The Parthians may have been defeated at the Roman Parthian war of 161-166 but they lost because of a plague that came from Kushan empire and before that, they routed Roman armies in Armenia and Syria The Parthians were also victorious in war of Caracalla and the battle of Nisibis 217 AD and the Romans were forced to pay heavy tribute There's a also a lithograph which scholars believe it shows Bahram II victory over emperor Carus after his successful campaign against the Kushan rebel king in the east Khosrow I invaded Roman territories several times and even destroyed the fortress of Dara and as i said won the Lazic war Khosrow II conquered territories 3 times larger than Trajan's Trajan defeated a small Parthian army but Khosrow's generals defeated at least ten Roman army that were equal in numbers with them or even surpassed them in numbers They even defeated Heraclius once (before his counter attacks) They even took true cross from Romans The last Sassanid Byzantine war wasn't even a Roman victory it was a stalemate It doesn't even says Roman victory in English Wikipedia unlike those 3 series of wars i told you which were Persian victories
1. Would depend on the leadership of both. There were Roman Generals who could defend their flanks against a more mobile enemy. There are also classic examples when they didn't. But it would depend again where the battle is taking place as you fight Rome and their auxiliaries. The place decides the type and quality of the latter. 2. Their lamellar armor was very thin. Their silk shirts are probably a better argument for you. Remember Rome had other armor beside chainmail. I don't think they have technical advantage, especially when you consider all the specialized weapons Rome could have waiting for them if they know the Mongols are coming. 3. Rome used some pretty advanced tactics that would be re-learned after the middle ages. That said, it would still come down to who is leading either army. Both had moments of brilliance in battle and some battles they would like to forget. I would give the edge to the Mongols because they can refuse battle much easier than rome if the terrain or situation is not to their favor.
Tell that to South Asia East Asia and Western Arabia. Perhaps a Empire not lasting more than a generation is not enough humiliation for people who lives in tent on the mountain.
@@adib4573 They conquered all of east Asia except Japan, but it is not connected to Asia by land. They did not conquer south Asia since the Delhi Sultanate was at its peak at the time - a total waste of time for the Mongol who were able to conquer the other extensive parts of Asia with their strength (and did). Their Empire lasted way more than one generation. It was established in 1206 and the last Mongol division, the Golden Horde, fell only in 1502. Are 300 years a generation? There were also other Mongol states which inherited parts of the former 4 division of the great Mongol Empire. Additionally, the fall of the Mongol Empire did not happen because they were weak, but because of internal civil wars. Haven't you heard about the Division of the Mongol Empire?
Even with older tech the mongols would win as they have a tight merit based structure and could coopt any culture in the world create a diverse yet unified army
Actually, this would be more about the type of armies involved than technological advancement. Heavy chainmail, tight formations and slow moving Roman Columns wouldn't stand a chance against arrows shot from the recurved bow (which would penetrate any and all armour) and the swift horseback archers would be FAR more maneuverable and flexible than armoured Roman legions.
Roman soldiers had massive shields to protect themselves from arrows. Wooden shields remained an effective counter to archery well into the medival period
@@arnavnair4810 what is their poundage compared to a european longbow then? With a really heavy poundage bow I'm sure it could penetrate through the shield although idk if it would have enough force after that to penetrate the armor
@@cheeto4027 The recurved bow increases tension on the string. That makes the arrows hit much harder. It's one of the main reasons why the Mongols were as successful as they were. Also, let's not forget how the Romans had a hard time fighting even the Huns, who were smaller in number and had a much more primitive bow.
Umm, no. A Recurve bow doesn't penetrate all armour solely because it is recurved. It's not a superbow my son. If this were the case, it would be the dominant weapon then and now on the battlefield. Don't get me wrong though, it's a great weapon when used correctly in the context of its time, just not the great equalizer mongol fanboys think it is. One mongol archer is a minimal threat. Even a group attacking a well prepared defense isn't as effective as many suppose. It is the Mongol horde taking unprepared enemies on open ground in waves with showers of arrows where they shine. Once they got deeper into Europe on less favorable terrain facing heavily armoured cavalry, they were crushed. They never conquered Christiandom for a reason.
It really depends. Rome at its height would probably win due to their professionalism, wealth, adaptability, efficiency and incredibly unique and unorthodox tactics.
Lol.. The Mongols had the largest empire for a reason.. Alexander ran away after seeing the might of the Nanda empire... The Mongols under Genghis Khan was something else entirely... Westerners give a lot of empty credit to their meagre empires when in reality the only empire worth talking about is the British Empire
When the Mongols was in their height of power. The original Romans were gone. Only the Eastern Empire existed. The Mongols and the Eastern Empire went out around the same time.
"Could hitler beat napoleon"
"Yes, because he had tanks"
Even if we send Mongol hords back in time they would have still crushed Romans
@@HannibalBarca-jv4px not a chance Mongols were Lucky in their time and used it at their full potential. China was having crisis and after them they decided to go for weaker region of Middleast which are already started to break down and the only reason Abbasid caliphate hadn't fallen before is because they were respected as city of knowledge.
You forgot how Mongols didn't even dare to fight in South Asia and when they did they were blown off.
With that we can safely assume Mongols offensive behaviour wouldn't have been able to defeat the Roman at their peak or stable state.
@@adib4573 You mean that Khiwarzian Empire was a weak part of Asia 😅. They had a massive Army compared to Mongols. Mongols didn,t defeat Dehli Sultanate of India because they were highly focoused on China and Western Asia. We Know what Timur Tamerlane did to the Dehli and Ottomon Empire. Same Ottomon Empire which defeated Combined European Armys many times. Timur Army wasn,t as strong as Mongol Hordes
@@HannibalBarca-jv4px European Armies outmatched the Ottoman Empire in the end
@@HannibalBarca-jv4px Khwarezmian empire had a smaller army than the Mongols, and their fortifications were still devastated by war.
The Song dynasty of China outlasted the Mongol empire. It wasn’t conquered until after their empire fragmented, and Kublai had formed the Yuan dynasty.
Typically, combined European armies defeated the Ottomans,l. Not to mention in their early history the Ottoman armies were primarily horse nomads like the Mongols.
This is like asking if the Modern US Army could have defeated the British army in the war of 1812
Yeaahhh, bad comparison
Bro it could also mean the Byzantine empire
@@xoxoheartz The images used depicted the western Empire
what you mean? a roman army from 50ad couldve smashed almost any army from that era xq aside from the mongols
Actually, I think it would have been more like, could the Mongols have defeated the might of the modern US army hehe.
“Titus, load the H.E.A.T”
"Titus, forget the Pila, load the fifty"
@@robertspeedwagon982 Titus, forget the .50 cal, call air support
"Titus, what is the status of Albertus Einsteinen's Londinium Project?"
Wrong Flavius, we need APFSDM. Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Mongols.
@@robertspeedwagon982isnt Titus the guy from amunus
"Could Batman have conquered Rome AND the Huns?" "Yes, with enough prep time and because he has 1000's of years of futuristic tech at his disposal..."
Could Spiderman have Vanquished the Eastern Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire??
@@debasishgoswami9896 "Could Wolverine have defeated Alexander the Great?"
@@benjaminmorris4962Could Superman have defeated Ashoka the Great ??
@@debasishgoswami9896 Could Blue Beetle have prevented the Spanish Inquisition?
@@benjaminmorris4962 Could Shazam have vanquished Khalid Ibn Al Walid??
I don't feel like it's fair. If you're going to compare two empires that existed almost 800 years apart, then you have to either make Rome have the technology of the time or have the Mongols have the technology of the Time of Rome.
He literally states the reason they would win was because of the technological advantage they would have because they existed so far apart quit bullshitting
Tech? Mongols would spam arrows on horseback until there opponents would ran out of man power.
@@epistemologyphilosophy7791 I feel that if Rome was at its apex, there's no reason that Rome couldn't have adapted to the Mongols, they were notorious for their adaption skills.
@@HenryofSkalitz-ug8rc the invention of the composite bow? That can fire up to 850 meters accurately? Or the first historical usage of gunpowder in the form of hand grenades?
@@HenryofSkalitz-ug8rc the mongols used trebuchets, they would have a massive advantage in siege-craft and Roman fortifications would be turned to dust. cavalry? Mongols have composite bowmen. fortifications? The mongols have hundreds of years worth of technological advancements in siege craft. Maybe if it comes down to a contest between infantry in terrain that suits the romans but even then that’s a toss up because ancient metallurgy is nothing in comparison to what the mongols had. To go even further it’s even demonstrable in history that Roman legions struggle under the pressure of horseback archery, we know this from when Crassus tried to do a campaign in Parthia and failed miserably.
“Could Belgium have defeated Rome?”
“Well, they have tanks, automatic weapons, jet fighters, helicopters, satellite communication and know everything about the roman’s battle tactics from history books. Yes! The Belgians could defeat the Romans!”
You took it way to far .
But yeah a valid point
@@ziyanmehdi8113 I think you forget how much advancements were made in those thousand years. A nation as large as Belgium in the medieval age could have crushed a Roman army.
and then: surprise, Romans win the war with the help of Zeus and Mars (cuz they actually existed that days but we don't know it today🤣)
All hail Belgium ahah 🤣🇧🇪
I wonder where all those weapons were the last 2 times the Germans invaded
The Huns were not the sole cause of the collapse of the western Roman empire. That info is wrong.
The huns also faced a massivly weaker Rome that was already dying for a long time. Even without the Huns they would have had another hundred years at best
Most of these channels are BS to begin with and regurgitate shit so much that the info becomes questionable at best.
@@bloodangel19 and that huns are small group who separated of thier kin banished thier homeland.
@@j.t.1280 That will be most stupid hisrorian i would say bcs we all know atilla some reason.
And Romans didnt win Catalunian Battle. It was a stelemate and no one won. Huns defeated Romans lots of times. They came to Rome and Pope begged for mercy. And the migration period ended with the seperation of Romans. And those migraters were Huns.
Now imagine if the mongol army had a mongolian death metal band playing in the middle of the war.
Searh 'the hu' its an insane mongol metal band
Underrated comment
Mongols had war drums and the glorious whistles of whistling arrows, that's enough.
@@SubutaiGodor "Uuhai" they awesome too
They did have throat singers
Next short idea: One M1 Abrams vs One Roman Legion...
The romans would overwhelm the M1 Abrams
@@beandude6773 No, as long as M1 Abrams can outrun the legion and resupply and its crew rest safely, it can.
They could send the Cataphracts
Would the Romans even bother? Wouldn't they just run?
@@alexb9969 Any modern tank is faster than a cataphract would have been.
This is highly assuming that Rome wouldn't adapt to fight the mongols. And one thing we know is that when Rome lose they always come back with more tricks up their sleeves
They wouldn't..there is a reason they conquered so much
@@Dr_Diaz they conquerded Lands that didnt had the will or Military Mind like the romans
@@Dr_Diaz Rome wasn't just any other state.
@@Dr_Diaz And there’s a reason the Romans survived until 1453 while the Mongols shattered upon Gengis’ death. Mongols were a great empire don’t get me wrong but the Romans didn’t build their empire without punching death in the face a few times every century.
Edit: For any future readers to stop replying to a finished Argument, I already gave up this point several months ago and yes I know that his Grandson held it together however the fact remains that it split after 4 rulers and one civil war.
@@jhonjhon3715 sorry fanboy, but Rome stands no chance.. we are talking about a difference of almost a thousand years in technology advancement of warfare here.
Bro really asked “Could the modern day French army beat wellington at Waterloo? It’s a horrible comparison
Fun fact, the Roman Empire technically outlasted the Mongolian Empire.
Nope, not really. You are playing tricks.
@@dortmundgrabenstein9193 Just telling the the truth, the Mongolian Empire fell apart in 1368 A.D, the Roman Empire officially fell in 1453 A.D with Constantinople.
@@subhammukherjee6863 Mongols wouldn't change any genetics. Almost the entire Mongol army would be made of Europeans and Caucasians rallied against the Romans, led by a handful of Mongol commanders with maybe some Arab/Persian engineers.
@@satyakisil4289 are you an European?
@@subhammukherjee6863 no I'm your papa.
I think the real question we should be asking is: Could dinosaur's with laser-beam-eyes beat sharks with guns strapped to their backs?
bro's asking the real question
No no no it’s sharks with FRICKIN LASER BEAMS attached to their FRICKIN HEADS.
there was a cartoon in the 80s like that called Dino Riders
As long as Dinosaurs avoid water, yes.
@@swewunna y'know, I've been lying awake every night for the past 3 months thinking about this, thank you for this answer, I didn't even think of coming at it from that angle _🙏_
Can robots defeat cavemen? Yes.
I dunno, they did have sticks
Yeah? What about the fact they could climb trees and create fire by striking stones?
Can robots defeat cavemen? Absolutely not. Our robots are not those science fiction types which could act like a human.
Not these robots. No
Unless the cavemen can walk up and down stairs....then the robots are useless.
Roman had figure out how to make a flame thrower on a ship and early cannon balls to attack ships from the shore.
@@ddolddol.masterbecause they had gunpowder
That’s the Byzantine’s my man as well as after the Roman Empire officially died out
Mongols actually used better cannons, better gun powder and greek fire, better technology and armor piercing arrows and better tactics.
@@shenzhendrake2429 are you on something? I can def give the armor piercing arrow thing but like half of their tech was shit stolen from other people and they didn’t use cannons or at least didn’t use them a lot nor did they use much gunpowder
@@sunshineroses7984 rome couldn't even conquer partheon empire, but mongols fought empires five times bigger and more advance than they are. its clear genghis khan will napalm firebomb rome for fun.
How to win a war in middle ages: Have Turko-Mongol nomad army
Koreans were able to defeat the Chinese when they formed an alliance with the Turkish and Mongolian tribes. But the Chinese are a warrior nation.
@@Son.Gohan3Chinnese are a peasant nation, not warriors.
Koreans Allied with Mongols, no Turks there
@@Son.Gohan3 Chinese warriors oh my belly in history mongols win the battle against china more than 100+ chinese win battle against mongols what 10+ hahahahhaha
Turk, Arabs, Persians are weak lmao
Very different to Europeans and East Asians that are warriors
@@stdona 100+? you are dreaming? The Jurchens of the Jin Dynasty enslaved the Mongols for 100 years and implemented the policy of massacring men for 100 years. Temujin's grandfather and father both died of the Jurchens, so Temujin particularly hated the Jurchens. Genghis Khan mobilized all his troops and Khans and even sacrificed Temujin's life without attacking the Jin Dynasty. In the end, Ogedai and the Song Dynasty joined forces to defeat the weakened Jin Dynasty. However, the Yuan Dynasty lasted less than 100 years, and during the Yuan Dynasty, ordinary Mongolians had no choice but to work as slaves for the Han people. In the late Yuan Dynasty, there was even a law prohibiting Mongolians from continuing to be slaves. Ordinary Mongolians were more happy to see the Yuan Dynasty perish. When the Yuan Dynasty perished, ordinary Mongolian people worked with the Ming Dynasty people to overthrow the Yuan Dynasty. When the Ming Dynasty was established, there was even an army composed of Mongolians. The Qing Dynasty ruled the Mongols seriously for 300 years, and carried out a hundred years of genocide against the Mongols. The number of Mongolians dropped sharply from 6 million at the beginning of the Qing Dynasty to 800,000 at the end of the Qing Dynasty.
The comment section for this is pure gold
Ikr
Half off em are just Total War players or Fallout New Vegas fanboys lol.
100% agreed this might be the largest congregation of ignorant people outside of an average Twitter discussion
@@craig3077 You figured it out XD
Well the Huns did face an already weakened roman empire, if the mongols faced rome at its prime i think they would lose.
I dont think so, the jin dynasty in china was a superpower with over 1 million soldiers with advancement over rome by 1000 years, yet genghis khan annihilated them, rome will be much easy.
@@TheChosen2030 I’m not sure I understand this logic fully.. assuming the Roman Empire would have remained in its prime, would they not have advanced technologically as time went on as well?
Augustus or Trajan vs. Genghis Khan
Europe is tiny compared to china Indian and south east Asian, but tiny cold Europe with luck copy chines tech gun power conquest half of the world. Chines alone bigger than Europe in military and population, but Europe survived because of luck. I will said mong will win. In Rome peak it has 50 to 70 million population, in Mongolia it has 100 million population. Mongolia in a short times kill 40 million people. That will 70 to 80 percentage of peak Rome empire.
@@chaos5104 ok but again you are comparing way different time periods.. as time progresses populations tend to increase… at one time Rome was over around a 25% of the worlds population. So as they grew, so would their population.
Also mongols relied heavily on essientially blitzkrieg tactics. Part of what made that successful was they were able to move so fast and raid villages for food and fodder for their animals… under Roman rule, most places were not set up this way. Romans would hold out in a fort, stall the mongol advances, force their logistics to become problematic, counter attack, take over.
Romans would also have understood that a single man was holding together the mongol empire (whereas Roman rule could survive a “bad emperor”) Roman offensive strategy may have been to take out the leader of the Mongols and watch them disintegrate. At their height no one played the intrigue game better than the Romans.
I could go on, but I believe Roman’s had many advantages in a war against the Mongols. I definitely believe they would have beaten the mongols at their height if they advanced simultaneously with the mongols… and to be honest I believe they would have beaten the mongols if they entered a time machine and were transported to the age the mongols were with their technology… especially if they were led by Julius Caesar, Augustus, Trajan, Aurelian, Constantine, or Belisarius (if we are counting the Byzantines). Heck I would even put up a Vespasian or Majorian or even non Roman emperor Stillicho against Ghengis or Subutai
Could one modern soldier defeat 1000 Mongolians? Yes, he has a gun
No
Really? My guy….@@miaomeow69
The Mongols could shower Arrows, you can't kill 1000 people in a single go.
@@Scankarleh depends what weapon system I'm using or in.
One Modern soldier with a Gun cannot launch a Nuke,
He can't use a Tank because that requires an entire Tank Crew to operate it.
A Modern SOLDIER with a GUN means it's not a Pilot either.
there is also good arguments that early roman armies at around 2nd century BC were better suited for war than the armies they wielded in the 4th and 5th centuries
It depends. Roman armies from the 4th century onwards were far more cavalry-heavy and had much more anti-cavalry measures. The roman empire even continued this line of development through the middle ages, and was the first to widely adopt pikemen in land battles in europe after the macedonian phalanx fell out of use.
@@ITSMRFOXY the roman empire fell before 500AD, which is when the middle ages began (500-1500 is generally considered Middle ages)
@@hilebardThe eastern roman empire is the roman empire. The term ”Byzantium” was made up by the holy roman empire because they didn’t like that the mighty roman empire had been conquered by muslim turks. They also wanted to be the only nation with rome in its name. People like you are going to continue being easily brainwashed and manipulated by others around you.
Your next video will likely be Blackbeard's ship vs HMS Hood
I wouldn’t be surprised! 😂😂
Goddamnit 🤣🤣
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Blackbeards might have won tbf.
Gak Gak Gak 😆Gak Gak Gak Gak Gak Gak Gak Gak Ga 😂k Gak Gak Gak 🤣 Gak Gak FOSHO !
Next : Could the Mongols defeated US Marines?
Napalm
To be fair, the time difference between the Romans and the Mongols is pretty similar to that between the Mongols and US marines.
Yes
We all know the answer to this, especially if your a HOI4 Gamer
Even Cavalry with Guns is weaker than Standard Infantry lmao
@@SYMBI05IS I think it was a sarcastic comment
Battle of Carrhae is an example. Hit and run with horse archers were common amongst Parthians and Mongols.
I think: YES. Archery cavalry of Mongol is a nightmare.
The Byzantine Empire and The Mongol Empire actually had an alliance with each other, although it eventually turned into hostility
I'm fond of the history of that region (I'm from it after all) and didn't know that, as far as I know and I don't recall there was a major campaign from the Mongols toward the Romans in fact I don't think they even shared a borders considering the Seljuks were between them.
@@firstnamelastname4249 didn't the mongols enter Anatolia?
@@ytweirdgameryt6907 they did but the Seljuks were between the Romans and the Mongols
@@firstnamelastname4249 i think it was the kingdom of Nicaea at that time as the crusade in 1204 sacked Constantinople and forced the Romans to leave
@@ytweirdgameryt6907 they are some people believe that the Roman empire died with Alexios V but nevertheless the Nicaeans were inherted the authority of Constantinople and even still I don't recall that the Nicaeans shared borders with the mongols
The fact that Mongols have been travelling thousands of miles continuously fighting battles along the way.
FR it was tough journey
@Unfriendly atheist I am the punishment of God... If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.
Genghis khan
@@lollzma I think he didn't said "Unfriendly Atheist"
And yet they fought on, subutai, when passing through the Caucasus after a lengthy, disconnected campaign, then fought all the Russian thiefsdoms armies and won, returning to mongolia after to tell them of Europes weakness
@tsundere In the end, God choked him with a hair drinking milk. What a heroic death.
Can the T-1000 defeat a Navy Seal?
Answer: YEAH!
Duh..
Nah, navy seals probably have thermite.
What's a T1000 😳
Exactly
@@robertocvirkRobert Patrick’s character from Terminator 2.
@crazyralph6386 lol, cheers thanks, in that case a seal will lose 👍
"The Romans beat the Huns. That is how we know they would lose to the Monguls."
Bro, what kind of braindead logic is this?
Well.. the huns that are let by atilla almost crashed the Romans even though they lost to the war they put the Romans in the weakest state of their history compared to the huns Mongols had a way better tactics and man power
When you say "Rome" what part of the 500 year Unified and Western Empire are you talking about? Oh near the end when the whole thing was crumbling? Ok, that seems fair.
@The Great Chinggis Khaan Carthage had great generals.
Carthage fell, it's lands were salted, and it's existence is little more than a story.
The Mongol empire lasted what 200 years IF we are generous and round up to the nearest 100?
@@joejoelesh1197 we are talking about the military. Whether the Roman Empire lasted for 500 yrs or less, it doesn’t matter. I personally think the Mongols would win because of tech gap and the use of horse archers.
Yeah it’s so weird when people compare Rome vs someone & 9/10 they always bring up when the western empire was on its last legs… you could do this for almost any empire ever.
Should only use peak Rome around 100AD, or in this case it should be the eastern Roman Empire since the west fell literally almost 1000 years before the mongol empire came to be
@@prime4851 it certainly matters. It gives the mongols literally hundreds of years of technology advancements. Why even use the western Roman Empire that died millennium before the mongols, when the Eastern Roman Empire was alive & kicking until almost 1500AD
@@tendopain2585 that’s sorta not what I meant bro
Imagine claiming victory to a state that is on its deathbed
The Huns were the Ancient ancestors of the Mongols
And turkics too. Both of them
The only people who think this wouldn't be ridiculously in favour of the mongols are completely ignorant of history.
Rome is like Kakashi
They can copy every shit and make it 2x effective
Just like today's china except the Chinese can make it even cheaper.
Romans copied technologies from inferior civilizations. Romans never quite copied Parthian bows or Parthian cavalry tactics
@@doldemenshubarti8696 carthage and their boats?
@@Riskijay55 Carthage was a merchant civilization. Most of their soldiers were merceneries. It was basically like Swiss going up against British Empire at its peak. Not a chance.
@@doldemenshubarti8696 rome was far from its peak my guy during the first punic war, and to diss hannibal like that my god
I want this played on my funeral
🤣🤣🤣😜
Ah yes McDonalds is indeed a good source for history
The mongols and the romans actually had a peace pact
I’d have money on Roman’s.
You’d lose it 9/10 times.
Ur a bad investor.
Parthians: you sure about that?
@@fedda9999
Trajan: yes.
@@Floki_631 Dacian king Decebalus: Battle of Tapae in 88, we had fun times :)
Anything with >1000 years more of technological development could defeat the Roman Empire.
At the height of Mongol Empire, the great Khan commanded an army equivalent to 29 roman legions.
The Eastern Romans were very much alive during the reign of the Mongols.
And they would have been absolutely bodied.
To be fair rome was already heavily on the decline at this point.Most of their army wasn't even roman anymore but gauls and germans.
Exactly. This video is misleading
Barbarization thesis is literally nonsense propagated by Gibbon and Mommsen. Even in 476 the foederati were somewhere between 25 and 33 percent of Roman forces in the West. That number had been stable for over 200 years by the way, during the Dominate under Diocletian and Constantine the army was somewhere between a quarter and a third foederati.
People seem to ignore Gunpowder technically as well. Everyone is over hyping Rome too much.
Agree they don't know history
@@arandomtasmaniandevil199 Rome itself was a grand military powerhouse and it would by far no easy fight for the mongals but combined with superior numbers, technology and things considered entirely unfathomable to the Imperial Era Romans, the firm advantage would be in the hands of the Mongols.
@@tauempire1793 yeah I love Romens but the Mongol Empire would be a hit to Rome
Romans did defeat the Mongols, at least their ancestors...
What did the Mongols have that was so much more advanced than what the Romans had?
The Turko-Mongolian military tradition of Central Asia is truly immense. This culture extracted the greatest military geniuses of history from that savagery.
Hunnic empire 🐺
But you are from Asia aren’t you? Ofcourse you would say this.
@@JOSWAY787 There are three military masterminds in entire human history: Alexander The Great, Genghis Khan, and Tamerlane. Two of them are Mongolian and Turkic.
@@7emek well mongols aren't turkic
@@7emek by masterminds you mean savage tyrants that burned every land they conquered down? Wow real masters
Internal Enemies are the Biggest Factors in Losing a War.
That's exactly what happen to America today...right?..right!.
Attila: Am I a joke to you?
"Could the Soviets beat the Poland-Lithuania?" "Yes, because they beat Poland before and have centuries of technological advancements over them" 😂
I mean the Parthian are good example to compare the two because they have similar tactic to the Mongol
And fought to essentially a stalemate. Assuming that comparison is accurate, and accounting for the technological advancements made between the peak of the Western Roman Empire and the Mongol Empire, it may be safe to assume a similar outcome. Similar to the Battle of Catalaunian Plains between the weakening Western Roman Empire and the Huns as well, although both sides relied heavily on alliances.
Ah no the Romans fucked up the Parthians. It just wasn't logistically worth while to maintain people in the far east.
Sassanian Empire are the real nightmare of Rome
@@roycekimmel It's not. It was a humiliating defeat of Rome. Rome got off easy with the death of Parthia's general and the ensuing weakening within. Also, both Parthia and Mongols might rely heavily in mounted archers but that's where the comparison end. Parthia is a sedentary empire, Mongols are nomads. Mongols were bred for warfare from childhood especially the mongols from Genghis's time, where tribes were at constant war with each other and China. The later "mongols" were weaker and adapted sedentary lifestyle.
You should make a video on if Rome could’ve beat Hive fleet leviathan, that seems like a fair comparison.
Death to the xenos. Ave imperator
Absolutely yes. Crassus got his ass handed to him by the Parthians, an early horse people. Mongols were pros after subjugating China.
Mongols were not that technologically superior to the huns. Huns were horse archers, mongols were horse archers, instead mongols had more capable leaders and much more brutality.
Yes of course, the Parthians showed Crassus how...
Okay...
Then a lot of Roman emperor kicked the ass of the parths after Carhes.
@@Pieranuit And then the Sassanids kicked Roman ass... repeatedly. Only to be replaced by the even deadlier Rashiduns.
@@roadent217of course, but in 260 Roman Empire was become a Joke. Despite that They destroyed the sassinid capitals Ctésiphon after the defeat of Valérien.
@@Pieranuit 260 was around the golden age Pax Romana wasn’t it? They only started to really slip by losing territory in the 300s forward
"We don't agree, we are the best"
-west.
True
@Unfriendly atheist dude, it was not freely given, it's forcefully taken
@@Rorschach7012 Freely given*
@@benjyyx after loosing war yes, orelse everyone will get slaughtered
@@Rorschach7012 The west gives respect where it's due. The Mongols and the Persian civilization are testament to that. India on the other hand has no feats to glorify besides being a divided kingdom overthrown by foreign powers and being absolutely thrashed by the west. Why would they respect something/somebody they absolutely ransacked over a few centuries? You Indians cry a lot about your past and today your children (prolly you too) would jump at the first offer to settle abroad. Pathetic.
Rome season 1 was top tier tv.
There needs to be films like this !
I'd say the Romans would, at the very least, have a fighting chance. Even before the Huns, Rome had been fighting the Parthian (and later Sassanian) empire whose military forces were mainly reliant on their cavalry. They had Horse Archers and Heavy Cataphracts, similar to what Mongolian Cavalry forces would have been made up of. The experience and tactics that the Romans have gained from fighting Parthia could prove to be useful against a Mongol invasion
That where you're wrong
The Mongols took most of Asia and half of Europe plus they had gun powder and the Mongols would spread the black death to the Romans using dead bodies and slinging them over the walls
Cavalry yes but their army was nothing like the steppe nomads
I thought the Persians/Parthians were heavily defeated when they decided to execute the emissaries?
No their experience didn't do much when they faced the Rashidun Arabs and will not help facing the Mongols either. Their tactics and their use and composition of cavalry is not the same . Mongol army is very different than the Persians
Cap this was when Rome was collapsing and in the battel of the Carolinian fields the Roman army was made up of Germans.
Romans were smart. They would recognize the superior power and would rather chose to join them than fight.
The Catalonian fields was the basically the only time they defeated the Huns. The Huns ravaged and beat the breaks off the Romans for nearly 200 years.
Khalid ibn Walid - Sword of God - was the best military commander that step up on the battlefield. Crushing every army on his way, he remained undefeated and he done that against world superpowers who had superior numbers and equipment, and who ruled the world for 1000 years.
"Only a fool would meet the Dothraki in an open field." - Robert Baratheon. 🤡
It was Dothraki armed with bow, its worse.
Dothrakis are a joke compared to mongols.
What the fuck is dothraki
@@darthsidius9631 game of throne.. you don t know who was a dotraki? Lol
@@andrealettich no
Well, the technological advancements during this time were not too significant. The Mongols employed tactics similar to those of the Huns.
Western Rome didn’t fall cuz of the huns. There were a lot of reasons
huns of attila weakened them so bad that western rome could not handle a small problems later on
They killed your army And no reason ?? haha
@@t3ngristtt civil wars and dumb emperor's
@@t3ngristtt do you know that in europe, they see the Huns and Attila as Mongolians ?
Yeah, like centuries of decline, bitter civil wars, several plagues, political instability and so on. Not to mention the ever present danger and regular skirmishes with Gauls and religious tensions.
All of these things contributed to Rome's state over the course of centuries. In a sense, the horsemen were just opportunists and were never central to Rome's decline.
I would love to see sabutai vs Julius ceaser
Caesar, amigo.
Subutai will easily win
@The east lol
@The east are you really asking me this? Go, read about the mongols and then compare them with the Romans. Forget subutai, even inexperienced mongol general would have defeated ceasar probably because Romans troops were nowhere near the mongol horse archers who were also more tougher than Romans because they led a very difficult life. Remember how a single hunnic tribe which came out of Mongolia wrecked havoc in the Roman empire like nobody could do, not even the Germanic tribes. It was only on tribe which migrated towards west and they even subdued the Germanic tribes too lol and here you are asking me how 'subutai would have defeated ceasar'.
@The east one of the hunnic tribe moved towards west and one moved towards central Asia. It was a single tribe yet managed to subdue the Germanic tribes, the same people Romans could not subdue for so long and at las the germanics even took over. Moreover they literally wrecked havoc in all of the Roman empire. They were finally defeated but they were a single tribe out of Mongolia and they were nowhere near the mongols. Mongols had perfected the art of horse archery. As far as parthians are concerned, they were taken over by another Persian empire so it is not exactly defeating them. The empire's name changed but they were same people, the iranic. In fact Persian empires most of the times did far better than Romans.
Anyways, I am not gonna argue with you over this roman-mongol war because it never happened and you can believe whatever you want.
The thing about the late Roman Empire is that it was a period with low birth rates which favor Calvert army’s, not Infantry army since the cost of training a horsemen is offset by the birth rate. This made Huns easily better. And with Atilla being as smart as Ghengis, if it came down to. High birth rate period, Rome would have easily won. Just see Hannibal to their reaction to a conqueror.
this "comparison" video reminds me of a deep philosophical question my 5 year old asked me. "dad, what's stronger, 1000 lions or the sun?"
The Mongol Empire did cover Asia and parts of Europe.
One of Rome’s great strengths was they took a very pragmatic approach to war. If something didn’t work anymore they replaced it. If they discovered a method that worked better used by a different culture they either hired practitioners or stamped out a Roman copy. It must not be ignored that they also used the internal conflicts of enemy groups against them. Breaking up other coalitions or at least busying them with damage control.
If they found that light cavalry with horse archers was the only way then they would have definitely adopted those forces.
They couldn't adopt themselves against the parthians.
@pm the Romans did beat other steppe based horse warriors. Since Ghengis Khan lived 1162 - 1227 or so I should hope they would since the Eastern Roman Empire “fell” centuries earlier. The Mongols didn’t even invade Italy during their invasion of central and Eastern Europe from 1230-1240.
@@vijayvijay4123 well they beat them in Armenia and their assault against them in Mesopotamia ended with the sack of Ctesiphon in 165. Moot point since the Parthians were usually too busy killing each other until the Sasanians overthrew their princes and ended their empire. Ardashir I, ruler of Istakhr in Persis, revolted against the Arsacids and killed their last ruler, Artabanus IV, in 224 AD.
As if the mongols did not do that, but with more cultures and innovations to access.
How!? They would need to be able to recruit these people from somewhere. You march to war with the soldiers you have which are recruited from the citizenry you have.
Things like Pike and Shot would have been absolutely obvious for the romans to adopt if they could get their hands on the tech needed for it. But horse archers backed by heavy horse? No. Just not possible.
It's funny how the Turkeys 🦃 in the comment are PROUD about someone else's "achievements" 😂😂
No, the Romans would win because they have stronger plot armor
Contest Is king as Always. In the asian steppe where mongols could use at his fullest the tactict of the faint retreat, every Roman legions would be easily annihilated. In Europe where when you don't have that much space as in Asia things would have gone totally different, in fact mongols army started to have their First defeats in Europe.
Well Europeans had also fought horse archers for centuries from the Scythians to the Cumans.
Metatron created a video this topic here is the link : ruclips.net/video/RQh0ARLL7sk/видео.html
Mongols got their first battle defeat in Palestine, and nowadays Vietnam, they didn’t lose in Europe.
And actually they lost with the same faint retreat tactics against mamluks
Ok mayo
Turks* not that buddhist nation mngls
This is no argument ! Romans were trained mainly for hand to hand combat . The Mongols were experts in killing enemies from several tens of yards away . A battle between the two would have been a one sided slaughter
Romans also had archers, and their infantry threw projectiles before engaging
@@Andrew-X Same as every other empire in history. Doesn't mean the romans would have had an advantage
@@vercot7000 difference was in roman legion discipline and formation as a unit...
No, just no
Syrian Archers or Nubian Archers would counter the mongols and I don’t even start with slingers which would also be deadly as hell
The Huns probably would have won if Atilla wasn't so obsessed with heavy infantry after seeing the Roman legions and stuck to a all calvary army
Infact romans were helping mongols in fighting against muslim leaders..
The only thing that came to mind was
"When did the mongols rule China?"
They still rule the Chinese 🤣🤣
@@WolfNol96 now I don't know about any of that stuff, but I was referencing the line from that one 80s film Bill and Ted's excellent adventure
Are you ok in the head buddy? First, when the romans faced the huns the western empire was already weak and in the brink of collapsing and they still managed to defeat them. Second, the Eastern Roman Empire was still around the time of the Mongols so the Mongols didn't have a "1000 years of technological advancements".
Haha Mongols go *taking over everything*
@@sophiecaddel5793 even though the romans made Babylon a province for a long time.
@@sophiecaddel5793 in 115 Traian conquered whole Mesopotamia and won many battles against the persians. But surely the romans also lost many battles against them. So all in all it's hard to say who was better.
@@sophiecaddel5793 the battle of Carthae happened in 53 BC. And the Parthians used heavy cavarly, the Mongols used flexible cavarly.
In the time of Mongols the Eastern Roman Empire was no longer an only infantry army, it was a combination of infantry and cavarly.
You are comparing a 2000 years Rome when the ERE was around the time of the Mongols, the ERE still outlived the Mongol Empire.
@@sophiecaddel5793 the Romans were defeated at Carrhae because of Crassus' incompetence. Likely, a more skilled Roman general would fight the Mongols effectively
Even without tech, the Mongols would win because they were more united and numerous than just the Huns
Mongols=powerful and hardwork
Roma= intelligent and smart work
Mongol hordes were really smart and cunning as well
Forgot to mention that, Rome had to unite with their “barbarian” enemies to defeat Attila and the Huns. Afterwards the barbarian allies noticed Rome was weakened, due to in fighting and from the Hunic invasion. Encouraging them to destroy and sack the western part of Rome. While in the East Rome would continue to exist until the Ottoman Turks would destroy it in 1453.
Рим существовал до 14.. года!!!!! Ха ха ха. Вы вообще историю знаете???? Где рим и турки!!!! Между ними тысячелетия. Неучь!!!!
@@AzamatBBizans imparatorluğu nün diğer adı doğu Roma dır Roma'nın son toprak parçası İstanbul'dur onuda Fatih Sultan Mehmet Han yok etmiştir
Nah. The Roman Empire that the Huns fought was a shadow of itself under the likes of Theodosius. Because of the Rule of Hanorius, the Empire was split in two and severely weakened by civil war and Barbarian invasions. Had Stilicho been around, the Empire wouldn't have been nearly as badly eroded as it was when the Huns arrived. The Huns beat poorly led Roman armies which lacked the recruiting base and fiscal capacity to replenish losses as well. This enabled the Hunnic successes of the later 400s. Considering how the Parthians faired against the romans, I don't see how the Mongols would do much better under a Rome with a good Emperor.
1000 years ahead? Were they shooting plasma rifles?
The Huns fought the Romans at possibly a time when Rome as at its weakest. There is no way that the Mongols would be able to defeat the Romans at their prime.
@@Rorschach7012 rajputs can easily defeat Huns so as romans
@@Rorschach7012 lol in your wildest dreams buddy. The Macedonians crushed you, and the Romans pretty much made mincemeat out of the Macedonians. And if you have forgotten the Romans have already beaten the Huns who were at their prime. So history severely disagrees with you.
@@thejediknight203 Macedonian crushed us? Lol Macedonians fought with a small vassal state pal, Alexander seriously injured in that campaign, almost loosing his life, Greeks didn't celebrated the victory of Gaugamela but they celebrated this one, Alexander himself said it was his toughest battle he ever fought, Alexander and his army refused to invade further because of fear that they will face a huge army, you need to read history that written by the greeks themselves buddy, after Alexander, the greeks came after him couldn't even succeed, the greeks plead maurya dynasty not to invade westward and offered a Macedonian princess. Read history dude.
Not just Roman, the whole of roman alliance defeated the huns, romans couldn't defeat the huns single handedly.
@@albintorso6107 there was initial setbacks but rajputs drove huns out of india.
@@Rorschach7012 I have a degree in history and a diploma in archaeology. My specialty Is ancient history. I know what I am talking about. I would suggest you go do some more research and then try and tell me I am wrong, but then again. You won’t see past your nationalistic pride and how it blinds you to the facts of history.
Y’all don’t know bout mongols man they are menace
The man in thumbnail looks like Dwayne Johnson.
Pissing contest came out evenly equal
Hum, that's not how any of this works. If you want to take into account that Mongols were a millennium later, you also must acknowledge that these would face the Romans from a thousand years later in you hypothetical scenario.
That would be fairer but the Physical Biology of both of them would make it unfair
The Romans assumed they adapted to Huns Raids would still have trouble
The Huns could kill you with a Bow and arrow to the head from 400 meters Away with not much problem
The Mongols would do the same thing from 2000 meters away with not much problem
2000 meters is as far as a Roman man could see but the Mongols would notice the Romans before the Romans would notice them so a surprise attack would be very effective
The Romans would lose the majority of the Battles and the only real way they could survive is if they consent to the Demands the Mongols are giving them, like probably handing over all of Anatolia, Crimea, Hungary Romania, and Bulgaria and paying tribute
Which the Mongols wanted the Holy Roman Empire and to do
Byzantines stood no chance against mongols
@@Scankarl hey where on earth can you accurately shoot a bow and arrow a mile away, the technology difference wasn’t really all that different between Rome and the Huns, also most of Europe was using bows by the time the Roman’s fell and that wasn’t one of the reason why they fell, the Mongolians controlled a lot of land but they collapsed after one person died, god for bud he gets killed in battle or dies of a disease in souther Europe they would immediately lose.
@@deanduncan2250 assuming the Mongols are in a High Place and the Romans in a Flat Terrain like France the Mongols can hit a Target from 2000 meters
@@deanduncan2250 The Mongols didn't collapse because one Person died
The Mongols existed Well into the 18th Century
I agree with you, the mongols would defeat the Romans because:
1: the mongol army was mainly cavalry light and heavy which would frustrate the Romans who always had trouble facing fast cavalry units as in the battle of carrhae.
2: the mongols were also technologically advanced. They used lamellar armour which is lighter than chain mail and gave more protection. And they were experts in siegecraft because they learned from the Abbasid caliphate after conquering iraq.
3: the mongols also used superior tactics.
Didn't they learn siegecraft from Chinese ?
@@ramtin5152 I meant the most advanced ones.
@The east Did They beat them simply just by outliving them ?
Do you know how many times the Romans were defeated by them ?
Anastasian war, Iberian war, Lazic war
All won by the Sassanids and the Romans were forced to pay heavy tributes each time
The last Sassanid Byzantine war was more like a statement and even the Byzantines lost 2/3 of their territories to the Arabs
Even Belisarius, the best Byzantine general was defeated several times by the Sassanid
Battle of Thannuris 528 (defeated)
Battle of Mindouos 528 (defeated)
Battle of Dara 530 (won)
Battle of Callinicum (defeated)
Battle of Nisibis (stalemate, Belisarius failed to conquer Nisibis)
Siege of Sisauranon (failed to conquer the fortress)
Bahram Gur also fought the Romans to a stalemate
Why not talking about the Roman armies that were crushed by the Sassanids before Heraclius joined the war ?
Hell, even he was heavily defeated once or twice before the Sassanids conquered Egypt
Watch History Experience video
Roman armies were defeated left and right
One of Shapur II small armies defeated a much larger Roman army at the battle of Samarra 363 and killed emperor Julian by shoving a spear in his chest
After that, the Sassanids took Armenia, 15 fortresses and western Mesopotamia
Check out Perso Roman peace treaty of 363 which was a humiliation for Rome and made up for the Sassanid defeat at Satala
Before that, he conquered Amida and even though he was forced to retreat at the battle of Singara, he returned at night and defeated emperor Constantine II in a night attack and retook his camp and the Romans were forced to retreat
During Julian's campaign, Shapur II defeated the second army of Julian in Armenia
Shapur I defeated 3 Roman emperors and even captured one of them
Each of their armies had between 60,000-70,000 men and he raided over 30 Roman cities and he had less soldiers than the Romans
He won the battle of Misiche (60,000 Romans), battle of Barbalissos (60,000 Romans), battle of Edessa (70,000 Romans) and siege of Dura Europos and even plundering over 30 Roman cities all of this while always being outnumbered 2-1
His father Ardashir I defeated the Romans at the siege of Nisibis 235 and his forces raided Cappadocia and Syria and conquered Armenia
Watch Yore History video about him, he also defeated two Roman armies in Mesopotamia, one were led by emperor's general and the other one was led by emperor Alexander Severus himself and both were defeated
The sack of Ctesiphon isn't a big deal since it was like 2 or 3 cities away from the eastern borders of Rome
And pre islamic Iranian empires had multiple capitals not just one
Odenathus failed to take Ctesiphon and was defeated at the battle of Ctesiphon 263
Before Narse was defeated, he defeated Romans at the battle of Carrhae 296 and also in two other battles and inflicted heavy casualties on the Romans and if he had won one last time, the Romans would've been completely defeated that year
Odenathus didn't even fought Shapur's army in a battle he just attacked him from behind while he was already going back to Iran and still, Shapur kept most of his men, prisoners, plunders and loots
He even had the time to raid Syria after this clash with Odenathus which means Odenathus forces suffered heavy casualties and couldn't stop Shapur at the time even after that clash
I know you guys say Shapur lost the conquered territories but the fact is he didn't because he wasn't conquering he was just raiding
The Iranians didn't went as far as the heartland of Rome but when did the Romans ? Mesopotamia was as far as they could go and it wasn't even the heartland of Iran
There were a lot of Iranian kings who were present during the battles and there were a lot of times that they were victorious and Romans never could catch or kill them but they could kill one or two Roman emperors and capture one alive
Emperor Valerian was captured, emperor Philip the arab was humiliated and forced to pay heavy tribute and emperor Gordian III was defeated and probably killed in battle against Shapur
Yazdegerd II raided Roman cities and the Roman emperor was forced to pay him heavy tribute
Khosrow I raided the Roman territories and the Iranians raided Antioch several times
Kavad I and his son Khosrow I defeated the Romans several times at three series of wars in a raw
(The three wars i mentioned at first)
The Parthians gained great victories too
Battle of Carrhae, Romans lost even though they outnumbered the Parthians more than 4-1 and after that, they plundered the cities of Judea, Syria, and southern Anatolia two times
Mark Antony Atropatene campaign, half of 127,000 were killed by the Parthians and the Parthians had only 50,000
The Parthians also won at the battle of Rhandeia and inflicted a heavy defeat on the Romans
Trajan attacked when the Parthians were in a civil war and still lost all the conquered cities to Iranian peasant rebels and even during Trajan's invasion, the Parthians gained some victories
Trajan failed to take Hatra, which avoided a total Parthian defeat. Parthian forces attacked key Roman positions, and Roman garrisons at Seleucia, Nisibis and Edessa were evicted by the local populaces
The Parthians may have been defeated at the Roman Parthian war of 161-166 but they lost because of a plague that came from Kushan empire and before that, they routed Roman armies in Armenia and Syria
The Parthians were also victorious in war of Caracalla and the battle of Nisibis 217 AD and the Romans were forced to pay heavy tribute
There's a also a lithograph which scholars believe it shows Bahram II victory over emperor Carus after his successful campaign against the Kushan rebel king in the east
Khosrow I invaded Roman territories several times and even destroyed the fortress of Dara and as i said won the Lazic war
Khosrow II conquered territories 3 times larger than Trajan's
Trajan defeated a small Parthian army but Khosrow's generals defeated at least ten Roman army that were equal in numbers with them or even surpassed them in numbers
They even defeated Heraclius once (before his counter attacks)
They even took true cross from Romans
The last Sassanid Byzantine war wasn't even a Roman victory it was a stalemate
It doesn't even says Roman victory in English Wikipedia unlike those 3 series of wars i told you which were Persian victories
@The east The Mongols were far superior to any force before gun powder.
1. Would depend on the leadership of both. There were Roman Generals who could defend their flanks against a more mobile enemy. There are also classic examples when they didn't. But it would depend again where the battle is taking place as you fight Rome and their auxiliaries. The place decides the type and quality of the latter.
2. Their lamellar armor was very thin. Their silk shirts are probably a better argument for you. Remember Rome had other armor beside chainmail. I don't think they have technical advantage, especially when you consider all the specialized weapons Rome could have waiting for them if they know the Mongols are coming.
3. Rome used some pretty advanced tactics that would be re-learned after the middle ages. That said, it would still come down to who is leading either army. Both had moments of brilliance in battle and some battles they would like to forget. I would give the edge to the Mongols because they can refuse battle much easier than rome if the terrain or situation is not to their favor.
it’s like shooting bows and arrows at Tanks
"Beeeexheeegixheeeee" i felt that😌
Mongols are invincible ..
Tell that to South Asia East Asia and Western Arabia.
Perhaps a Empire not lasting more than a generation is not enough humiliation for people who lives in tent on the mountain.
@@adib4573 They conquered all of east Asia except Japan, but it is not connected to Asia by land. They did not conquer south Asia since the Delhi Sultanate was at its peak at the time - a total waste of time for the Mongol who were able to conquer the other extensive parts of Asia with their strength (and did). Their Empire lasted way more than one generation. It was established in 1206 and the last Mongol division, the Golden Horde, fell only in 1502. Are 300 years a generation? There were also other Mongol states which inherited parts of the former 4 division of the great Mongol Empire. Additionally, the fall of the Mongol Empire did not happen because they were weak, but because of internal civil wars. Haven't you heard about the Division of the Mongol Empire?
Where were the ababil birds to save your carpet-rolled horse-flattened caliph lol@@adib4573
Thank you Mongols ❤️
Even with older tech the mongols would win as they have a tight merit based structure and could coopt any culture in the world create a diverse yet unified army
they weren't more advanced tho, we lost thousands of years of technological advancements at the collapse of rome
Everyone bet on Roman until late game Mongol bring his cannon
Actually, this would be more about the type of armies involved than technological advancement. Heavy chainmail, tight formations and slow moving Roman Columns wouldn't stand a chance against arrows shot from the recurved bow (which would penetrate any and all armour) and the swift horseback archers would be FAR more maneuverable and flexible than armoured Roman legions.
Roman soldiers had massive shields to protect themselves from arrows. Wooden shields remained an effective counter to archery well into the medival period
@@cheeto4027 I'm talking about arrows shot from the Mongol Curved Bow
@@arnavnair4810 what is their poundage compared to a european longbow then? With a really heavy poundage bow I'm sure it could penetrate through the shield although idk if it would have enough force after that to penetrate the armor
@@cheeto4027 The recurved bow increases tension on the string. That makes the arrows hit much harder. It's one of the main reasons why the Mongols were as successful as they were.
Also, let's not forget how the Romans had a hard time fighting even the Huns, who were smaller in number and had a much more primitive bow.
Umm, no. A Recurve bow doesn't penetrate all armour solely because it is recurved. It's not a superbow my son.
If this were the case, it would be the dominant weapon then and now on the battlefield. Don't get me wrong though, it's a great weapon when used correctly in the context of its time, just not the great equalizer mongol fanboys think it is.
One mongol archer is a minimal threat. Even a group attacking a well prepared defense isn't as effective as many suppose. It is the Mongol horde taking unprepared enemies on open ground in waves with showers of arrows where they shine. Once they got deeper into Europe on less favorable terrain facing heavily armoured cavalry, they were crushed. They never conquered Christiandom for a reason.
Honestly, this tank looks like a jacked up Valentine. And that's a pretty cool thought to have.
Mongols don’t live in cities that Roman’s could siege.
It really depends. Rome at its height would probably win due to their professionalism, wealth, adaptability, efficiency and incredibly unique and unorthodox tactics.
Lol
Pls read about Mongols before u exclusively give this treat to the Romans you would be amazed
Lol if you think Rome was adaptable, had unique and unorthodox tactics, wait until you learn about the Mongols.
Lol.. The Mongols had the largest empire for a reason.. Alexander ran away after seeing the might of the Nanda empire... The Mongols under Genghis Khan was something else entirely... Westerners give a lot of empty credit to their meagre empires when in reality the only empire worth talking about is the British Empire
Just because you're western doesn't mean you have to support your own. There were many empires stronger than Rome if you pay attention
When the Mongols was in their height of power. The original Romans were gone. Only the Eastern Empire existed. The Mongols and the Eastern Empire went out around the same time.