romans v the mongols

[bobtheduck]

who would win?

[Skids]

Romans

[pixi]

Mongols

[Clanad]

So... there you have it...

[Fibonacci]

This be a comeback for the tv show "It's a knockout" this time with teams reresenting past peoples or tribes and suitable ancient challenge type activities.

Would have to be shown after the watershed in case of any Saxon violence.

[kev100]

The Mongrels at Millwall would be my bet

[bernardo]

Mongols, I reckon.

[firefly]

I believe the Mongols conquered more land than the Romans, though the Roman Empire lasted longer.

[Octavius]

It would depend on the general in charge at the time, and also whether the Romans were given 1000 years or so to develop and enhance their weaponry.

Debated in depth here

[reportmonkey]

Its a shame people cant give good answers to questions these days and have to post lots of inane stuff which should remain in chatterbank.

To answer your question bob I think you'll find that they had this contest already.

The Huns were a people very much like the maurading mongols in terms of their tactics and extensive use of cavalry.  The Romans relied heavily on their infantry which while effective in the hilly confines of their empire was ineffective on the open plain when faced with such troops. 

In fact the battle of carrhae saw a roman army under Crassus decimated by the horse archers and cavalry of Parthia.  The romans just could not cope against horse archers and a few hundred years later when Atilla and his maurauding Huns swept across Europe not a Roman Army could stand against him.

However the battle of Chalons did stop him in his tracks so many people claim this was a victory for the romans (Bear in mind they had heavy Barbarian Support from the Goths, and the Roman army by this point was mostly barbarian anyway).   However this was probably a pyhric victory and Atilla then went on to the gates of Rome itself.

I've noticed that many texts describe the Mongols in much the same way as they did the Huns so they must have been akin in both culture and military organisation.

If you want my opinion, the Mongols would win two out of three times.  Fast Mobile Cavalry capable of surrounding targets and engaging them at range.  A very early Blitzkrieg!

[AlMac11]

it isn't a best of 3 series, who'd win on the day? i say mongols. they have horsies

[AlMac11]

also, by the time the mongols arrived all the romans would be about 800 years old and so not in the best shape.

[morbidstorm]

late entry...

are we talking about the best roman general (gaius julius caesar) and an army from the height of the roman empire vs a mongol army at their height (led by ogadai khan) then it would depend on the general. as both armies suffered their defeats. it would depend on a lot of things, i.e weather, location, troop morale, etc... a very hard one to judge, the romans were successfull because they adapted to their enemy. they would suffer several defeats against an opponant and keep comming back adapting and changing their tactics so eventually they would defeat their enemy. as cassius found out fighting at carrhae, you cannot fight 'blind' and stubborn. but most of all the winning side must have luck. without this strange unseen untouchable ally, the side without it will always lose.