Could the Mongols Have Defeated Rome?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 ноя 2024
- Could the Mongols Have Defeated Rome?
mongols,mongol empire,mongol,mongol history,mongols vs romans,who defeated the mongols?,could the mongols defeat the roman legion?,mongol invasions,could rome have defended against the mongols?,ould the mongols defeat the romans,mongol army,roman empire vs mongol empire,mongol empire vs roman empire,what if the mongol empire never existed,the,history of the mongols,mongols java,how did the mongols destroy baghdad in 1258 ?,mongols japan,mongols india
Romans probably would lose some battles but they would learn how to win the war.
We already know the answer. Attila the Hun was part of that Mongol tradition and he beat up the Eastern Roman Empire. But when he fought the West Roman Empire with it's traditional Roman legions he got into a major battle in France and lost. The fighting was so intense it said that even the dead soldiers ghost where still battling with each other. And field was haunted for many years after that.
@@HellBot-gi5si No you don't know the answer, because if you did, you would look at the fact that Rome could not conquer Persia (Parthia & Sassanids) In 600 years despite many wars & attempts, they even gave up trying during Tajans time because of the Logistical difficulties of crossing the Zagros mountains alone LOL, while Ghenghis crushed a 3 times more powerfull persia (kwarezm) in just 3 years while he was fighting the Chinese (an even more powerfull opponent) On a second front at the same time, That alone shows the gap in power between the two
And the Huns are nowhere near as strong as the Mongols, first off they have weaker bows and no heavy cavalry, while the Mongols did have both heavy & light cavalry & both could shoot arrows with more powerful bows, the Mongols also had far bigger armies then what Atilla had.
Atilla's army against Aetius was 70% Germanic infantry, only the Center was made up of Hunnic nomadic light horse archer cavalry (he did not even have heavy cavalry like the Mongols) & that center performed really well and did a lot of damage against Aetius his Roman center which was almost destroyed, it's the Germanic flanks that made Atilla lose that battle and took most of the casualties, not many Huns were lost against Aetius & one could easily argue that if Attilla's Army was entirely made up of Hunnic cavalry (center & flanks) that he would've won that battle
Atius defeated Attila the Hun is as close as you’ll get for evidence
Helbot. The army that beat Attila wasn't made up of "traditional legions".
@@Samuel-hd3cp Roman General Flavious Aetius was on right flank of the army. He put the weakest soldiers the Germans and others in center knowing that it would collapse. When it did his Roman legions then flanked the Attila the Hun, he nearly committed suicide on the battlefield but his men prevent him from doing so. But the lost was bad. Afterward Attila order the creation of his own Western Roman legion army but was killed by poison before he could use it.
It would depend on the terrain. The Persians and Romans fought each other to a standstill. The Persians used the same weapons and fighting style as the Mongols - mass light calvary and heavy calvary. The light calvary used recurve bows the same as the Mongols and the heavy calvary were armored and were lancers. When the Romans ventured into Persian territory they were slaughtered, when the Persians ventured into Roman territory they were slaughters.
The Huns used identical weapons and strategies as the Mongols - when they ventured into Europe they were defeated by a combined Army of Romans and Goths. The peoples of central and west asia used open fighting styles ideal for their terrain, while the peoples of Europe developed fighting strategies and weapons ideal for Europe and meditteranean terrain.
There were many west asian nations that tried to defeat european powers and failed - Seljuk Turks, Huns, Persians, Scythians, Sarmations, etc,
No, they were not the same, not even close, there is a massive technological gap between the Mongol army of the 13th century & the Huns, Sassanids & Parthians on top of that the cataphracts & horse archers of both Parthians & Sassanids were only a small percentage of the entire Persian army which was still mostly made up of infantry
While the Mongol army was entirely mounted & even their auxiliary infantry were mounted with the spare horses of every Mongol warrior during transport only to dismount at battlefield (mostly at sieges), they are not comparable & same goes for the Huns, Atilla's army against Aetius was 70% Germanic infantry, only the Center was made up of Hunnic nomadic light horse archer cavalry (he did not even have heavy cavalry like the Mongols) & that center performed really well and did a lot of damage against Aetius his Roman center which was almost destroyed, it's the Germanic flanks that made Atilla loose that battle and took most of the casualties, not many Huns were lost against Aetius therefor the details & context are important
More importantly then anything, the 13th century Mongol army had better technology and better equipment then the Huns, Persians & Romans of the 1th to 5th Century which is logical because as time goes on, equipment and technology getter better & better
The Mongols had more powerfull and better bows, they had stirrups, better arrows, better armor, better siege engines, better steel, better shields, better horses, better communications methods (whistling arrows, fireworks etc), gunpowder explosive projectiles, old mortar like cannons, better swords, maces, lances and more
an Ancient army like the Roman army has little chance against a medieval army like the Mongol army, the same way the Mongol army would have massive trouble against a WW1 era army
There was NOT a massive technological gap between the Mongols and Romans, When it came to civil engineering, logistics, and military engineering Rome was a 1000 years ahead of the rest of the world. Yes the Mongols were almost purely calvary but calvary alone cannot win a European war as proven by England during the hundred years war and by the Poles and Hungarians who defeated the Mongols.
The gothic army was almost completely exterminated as were the Huns. The goths accused the Romans of sacrificing goths to save Romans but the reality Huns goths and Romans all faced massive losses and the Huns never recovered
FYI by the time the Mongols made it to Europe 70% of their Tumens were central asian turks and aryans.
@@Do-not-be-sheep Poles and Hungarians who defeated the Mongols?
Do you mean European "victories" at Mohi and Legnica. Recommend some reading about them.
@@matejmacek5784 I've read the history don't need to read it again. Read the entire history.
@@Do-not-be-sheep So when did Poles defeated Mongol Empire?
By 1260 they had civil war (rise of Kublai Khan) and afterwards it was fractured and non-existent.
But Poles did defeat Golden horde, which should not be considered as Mongol empire at is prime.
If we're talking about both at their prime, The Roman Empire had a army of approximately 500K troops. That is massive.
Not to mention as a precedence, even the slower Phalanx of Phillip & later Alexander both defeated the Scythians who had similar battle tactics to the Mongols. The Roman maniple was even quicker & more versatile, & would be backed by cavalry itself like the Greek armies were against Scythians. I don't think people can compare the Roman's battles with the Huns, as the Roman army changed, such as the armor, including no longer having the big defensive rectangular shields which would largely protect against the volley of arrows, & their army began to be made up of, more & more of Germanic barbarians rather than disciplined Roman Warriors.
I'd say both in their prime, I'd personally think the Roman Army would likely win this.
Prime Roman empire could not even stand in the shadow of Prime Mongol empire, You speak of 500k troops in total? That's the amount of Nomadic horse archer cavalry that the prime Mongol empire could muster by ruling over every nomadic tribe from Manchuria till Crimea (the entire Eurasian steppe), that's right, 500k skilled horse archers, all well armored & all with many spare horses, add to that all auxiliary heavy cavalry from China, Persia, Armenia, Georgia & Russia & you get another 500k heavy cavalry on top of that, so total of 1 million cavalry, now let's add all the auxiliary infantry that the Mongol empire could recruit from China, Korea, Persia, Rus & Caucasus and we get 2 million (mostly Chinese) auxiliary infantry, so in total 3 million active troops for the prime Mongol empire which is not surprising if you control a land mass from Korea till the borders of Poland & the amount of resources and arrows that such a massive empire could provide, it's like a medieval Soviet union.
So how do you expect prime Rome with it's 500k troops to stand a Chance ? not to mention the huge technological gap of a 13th century Mongol army with Chinese & Persian tech of that period vs a Roman army of Trajans period, there is like at least 10 centuries between them & the Scythians that Alex faced are nowhere near comparable to the Mongols, they couldn't even perform a parthian like shot, could only shoot forward and at the sides with weaker bows & arrows no less
The prime Mongol empire would have more advanced weaponry, better steel, better lances, better shields, better armor, better siege engines, gunpowder explosives, early cannons, better communications methods (fire works, whistling arrows etc...)
Prime mongol empire wins this with low difficulty in my opinion, I don't see an ancient army having any decent chance against a medieval army, the same way I don't see a medieval army having any chance against a Napoleonic army
@@aburoach9268 The Mongol army had at it's peak an estimated 150 K troops. Never did it get close to what you're saying.
They Mongols lost to the Mamlukes, couldn't even take Japan, Vietnam or Indonesia, or India. Far less powerful adversaries compare to the Roman Empire. Alot of particular Mongolia's adversaries that they took a large portion of their land from, particularly in most of the Northern part Mongol Empire were hardly powerful kingdoms.
Rome defeated the toughest armies at it's time, the Macedonian Greek kingdoms, one by one, than Carthage, & the most fierce barbarian hordes such as the Gauls & Germanics.
Also the technological age argument doesn't apply here. By Napoleon's time, they had guns, canons & the industrial age.
During the Mongol empire, they still had similar type arms, such armor, swords etc to ancient times, that hardly improved.
@@AlexHellene Agreed. But, Romans would've been defeated at the same circumstances as well, maybe even annihilated. Their tactics just wasn't suitable for fighting against the Mongols. The Mamluks' were similar to the Mongol tactics. Romans already had a similar battle against the Sassanids.
I'm not sure if rome would muster their entire army from all the borders into one front against one enemy, they would need to maintain a good number of their soldiers guarding the borders, plus rome struggled a lot against the horse archers of the parthians and the huns who the eastern half mainly paid to keep peace.
@@Legion_YT_ Sure, I'm just comparing the size in armies. Mongols wouldn't be able to gather their whole army too.
I agree that the much later ancient Romans would struggle or likely lose, as the armor & makeup of troops changed. I'm referring to when the Roman army was in it's prime, from the very late republic era to around the 2nd century AD
It depends on who the Mongol general is......not every Mongol general is a Subutai or a Jebe or a Genghis.
The same with the Romans.....not every Roman general is a Julius Caesar or a Scipio or a Germanicus.
I think it depends on commanders of both sides. Both Mongols and Romans had great military formations and tactics. I like Rome's war machine.
Depends on the terrain. In Hungary the Mongols won in the open but once hte King fortified more the MOngols couldn't win. Whoever took more advantage of the things they had or didn't have would win in the end.
This poses an interesting scenario. Roman calvary wasn't the best and suffered defeat by Parthian counterparts. The legions were mainly foot soldiers and were slower, allowing the Mongols time to pillage and prepare. In a battle where the legions could get at the Mongols I'd put my money on the Romans
The Romans could adapt to the Mobility of the Mongols, Roman Cavalry and Auxiliaries might be able to blunt the Mongol long-range attacks. It could have been epic I guess, the winner could have inherited the whole continental Europe and Asia if they were able to hold it and develop them.
Mongols did fight the Roman Empire. Attila the Hun came from that tradition. There was a major battle in France.
The Mongols
fought multi front wars spanning generations against States that were arguably just as organized and rich as Rome, and certainly far more technology advanced. They would Smash through any Roman Army and destroy any Roman fortification. The hardest part would be conquering mountainous terrain like Italy and The Balkans. First they would probably invade Syria. Then they would invade Egypt effectively cutting of the grain supply and greatly reducing the tax revenue need to maintain Romes armies. After a generation or two, the Mongols would have sacked Rome and put the fractured states under tribute.
You gonna make a series out of these Vs videos?
On one hand you have iron age Roman war machina, on the other Mongols with gun and trebuchets, etc.
Somehow our latent racism force us to forget successful sieges of Beijing, Samarkand, Baghdad, ... and force us into thinking that Roman wall will prevail.
Even somehow it allows us to compare Roman cavalry to Mongol one. One had saddle and stirrups and the other semi saddles. Somehow Mongols also have sabers, which were used almost unchanged until 20th century.
The real issue is, WHEN would the fighting take place ?
The STIRRUP wasn't invented until about the early 4th century. Up until that
time, cavalry could not make ' shock charges ' , nor could they use a couched
lance, or fire a bow and arrow accurately from the saddle. Until they had
stirrups, cavalry was used only for scouting and light skirmishing.
So, if the fighting took place at the height of the Roman Empire, you would
have had the Mongols putzing around the edge of the battlefield, and the
Romans dominating them with massed infantry and storms of arrows
and slingshot.
There is a 1000 years difference in technology that would be the game changer
Dude, They are like a Millenia Apart!
Hard to say as both had there time in history as top dog, but I would venture that the romans would wear down the mongols much like Hannibal was. The romans had excellent fortifications and artillery weapons such as the ballista. They had soldiers and forts throughout the empire whereas during the mongol time many armies were a one shot deal. The ability to move troops and supplies along roads made them masters of an empire that outlasted many other empires in time.
The Mongols weren't JUST horse archers though. They had siege engineers from China and acquired elements of the territories they conquered. And, Roman forts and cities weren't nearly as well fortified as medieval castles and cities.
The Mongols will win simply for superior technology and horse archers/lancers that can outpower the Romans easily. The real question is what happens to the Mongols afterwards. You'd probably see the Mongol Empire completely disintegrate after conquering Rome and post-Mongol Roman State emerging from its ashes, possibly ruled by a Mongol elite like the Yuan Dynasty.
I think your perspective analysis is great. Mongols would most likely win in an open battlefield, but struggle to siege any large city. That happened twice already for them in Japan, where they got absolutely demolished being a superior fighting force.
Attila the Hun came from the Mongol tradition. They fought on Catalaunian Plains in June, 451 AD. Roman General Flavious Aetius was victorious over Attila and his forces.
Japan was saved by 2 Typhoons. Mongols destroyed walled city after city. They used Chinese engineers for their seige warfare and were very successful. I think the Mongols - with their superior tactics, logistic and discipline would over come the Romans. It could be argued that Genghis followed Sun Tzu - Art of War principles.
@@HellBot-gi5si The Huns were far more primitive as horse archers than the Mongols. The Mongols were an organized empire with medieval armor, powerful bows that far outpower the Hunnic bows, and knowledge of siege tactics taken from the Chinese.
They took every major Chinese city
@@peterfan8650 you are correct! But as for the Romans, I highly highly doubt it. Rome specifically was designed to sustain itself during long periods of siege - the mongols would run out of resources way before they could even enter the walls. Infantry inside the walls would absolutely decimate mongols too, since they used to hinder you from afar instead of going “hand to hand”, and once inside city walls, it’s pretty much over for them. Plus we forget Romans were as brutal, if not more, as the mongols, and were literally born to be warriors. I don’t think they were better at anything rather than their horse archers, not at tactics, not at discipline and not at logistics - though the latter can be debatable. I’ll give them being way better at adapting - but that’s about it!
Hard to compare. A thousand years separate the two. Assuming a Rome during the early Empire (political stability) and adjusting for advancements in war technology, eliminating the effect of plagues, Rome might be able to hold its own. The horsed Mongol bowmen would really be a handful. Rome didn't fare well with the Parthians, Sassanids, or Persians. Politics and generalship would be key. The Mongols could possibly defeat Rome, Rome could possibly repel the Mongols, but not defeat or conquer them.
Nobody can say it with decent probabilty of being righ, damn, the best military analists with the best up to date info had failed to predict how the Russian invassion of Ukraine went, so speculate about the outcome of an hypothetical clash between cultures extinct centuries ago is just a mental game....said that, I would bet for the Romans, better at logistics, better at engineering, supremely adaptable, every bit as ruthless and brave as the Mongols and way way more important, the Romans at their peak had one of the strongest, largest and richiest societies of the world firmly backing their milittary, as one commenter wrote, the Romans would lose some battles but would had won the war.
The Romana lost against the Huns
The mongols were the next generation Hunnic archers I doubt Rome would have been capable of stopping them
Not really the huns were defeated in battel of catalaunian plains. The romans with the help of allies dealt a defeat to attila. After he died, the hunnic empire disintegrate. While romans endure for 1000 years more in a form of byzantine empire.
That western roman empire was in decline, but they still rallied old supports n beat the Huns n Ostrogoths n Franks at the Catalunian plains!
Atilla and the huns are sort of Mongols and they almost destroyed Rome
Rome would get spanked and smacked.
Of course the Mongol empire would walk over the Roman empire with low difficulty, do the math, Rome could not conquer Persia (Parthia & Sassanids) In 600 years despite many wars & attempts, they even gave up trying during Tajans time because of the Logistical difficulties of crossing the Zagros mountains alone LOL (and you have the audicity to claim that "Rome had better logistics then mongols") , while Ghenghis crushed a 3 times more powerfull persia (kwarezm) in just 3 years while he was fighting the Chinese (an even more powerfull opponent) On a second front at the same time, That alone shows the gap in power between the two, the Mongols in their zenith were themselves way ahead of their time, waging war like a WW2 era army. On top of that, they are centuries more advanced then the Roman empire of Trajan, an ancient army like the Roman army simply has little chance against a medieval army like the Mongol army, The Mongols simply have better Armor, better shields, better & more powerfull bows, better arrows, better steel, better horses, they have stirrups (which the Romans of Trajans time did not have), they have better siege equipment, the Roman fortifications are simply outdated and no match for Mongol medieval siege engines, the mongols also had gunpowder explosives, old mortar like cannons and a better ballista called the ox bow, The cheapest mongol brigandine would provide better protection against medieval time period arrows then the best Roman armor of Trajans time would
the technological gap alone is too much for the Romans
Genghis, Subetai or Jebe would defeat Rome in a minute. Dont believe me, ask Crassus ..
You are smoking drugs!! there was
1300 years between Crassus and Ghengis.
Gaius Julius Caesar , Flavius Aetius , Flavius Belisarius , Trajan , Constantine , Stilicho, Aurelian, Basil II and a few others : allow me to introduce myself :')
@@TheBlenderBender A Roman phalanx? Is this a bot comment?
It all depends on the terrain.
Crassus charged head first into the horse archers which were being supplied with arrows from pack mules. A good Roman Commander would not do that.