Could the Mongols at their peak at 1279 defeat the Roman Empire at their peak for every category (Territory, Army, Technology, etc).
Shit thread.
>>1223378
Also, Byzantine and Western Roman Empire both count as Rome.
>Could the French under Napoleon defeat the Abbasid caliphate?
>>1223378
Depends. Romans seemed dependent on good leadership more than others for some reason.
If caesar led, the mongols couldn't win or even compete on a single front.
Deal with it
>>1223378
Of course they could, they'd have many centuries worth of military tradition and technology on their side.
What a stupid question.
>>1223398
>what is Byzantine
>>1223400
Not the Roman Empire at their peak for every category (Territory, Army, Technology, etc), as requested by the OP, and as shown by the map.
>>1223400
A decaying city state kept alive by its ancient walls and the secret art of "pay them to go away"
>>1223407
Them having cannons seems to dispute this.
>>1223414
>... the walls could not be adapted for artillery, and towers were not good gun emplacements
>there was a worry that the largest byzantine cannon could cause more damage to their own walls than the turkish cannon
>gunpowder had also made the formerly devastating greek fire obsolete, and with the final fall of what had once been the strongest walls in Europe on May 29, it was the end of an era in more ways than one
>The Fall of Constantinople: The Ottoman Conquest of Byzantium (General Military)
>by David Nicolle (Author), Stephen Turnbull (Author), John Haldon (Author)
Them having cannons didn't seem to do much at all.
>>1223441
>All these handicaps
>>1223389
Easily, the technological advantage Napoleon would have is too great.
>>1223475
He clearly hopes to throw crutches at the side he supports until they win.
>>1223494
Name one (1) advantage
>>1223590
Cannons.
>>1223378
They did. This happened.. Turkic peoples defeated conquered the Roman Empire (Byzantine).
Didn't the Romans get poo-holed quite regularly by the effective use of horse archers?
>>1223844
You're retarded
>>1223378
are you retarded?
the roman empire didn't exist in the 1200s
>>1223865
Yes and those horse archers were inferior to the mongol ones too.
The mongol army is composed not only of units that can travel across hundreds of 40-60 miles per day easily. This will reck havoc upon Roman army for sure, since they can only go around 10 miles a day.
The difference is not just horse, but technology difference. The ability to throw 200 kg seige weapons were not invented during roman era. They had shields and infantry, but those are weak against flanks and divisive attacks that mongols would employ.
A roman army would need to be fed/garrisoned properly for them to work. When they are properly fed/garrison/armored, they are effective. The slow and heavy Roman army wouldn't last much in my opinion.
>>1223844
>rising Ottoman power defeated and conquered the completely decayed Roman Empire (Byzantine).
stupid argument
>>1223925
Are you retarded?
Stupid question OP. No doubt the Mongols could easily rape the Roman army to oblivion. The the sheer amount of speed, skill, technology and leadership they had on their side over the Romans would make it a clear victory.
>>1223378
>Can a 1200's empire with Gunpowder defeat a 100's empire without gunpowder?
>>1224052
It would just take a few battles like Lechfeld to defeat the mongols completely, they lacked the numbers in engagements against big sedentary societies.
Nothing about the mongols was in any way different compared to the Huns and Magyars. They conquered alot because everyone at their time was weak and divided, or a complete retard like the Khwarezmiah Shah.
could Alexander the Great at his peak defeat USMC?
>>1224082
>This denial
>>1224082
>The Romans would ever win with that technology gap
>Implying they won't get wrekt like the Native Americans vs Spanish
>>1223590
Napoleon
>>1224082
Their record alone proves that the Mongols were a different much more powerful group. They conqoured China, something no other steppe people did and China in the 1200s was much more powerful than ancient Rome. Could you imagine the Huns doing the same? A girl could have stopped a Hunnic attack on China.
>>1224114
>win with that technology gap
What technology gap? Cavalry armies that get destroyed quickly when someone does not fall for the old trick of chasing them?
Or do you think that the mongols had acess to firearms?
Both false.
>>1224097
Yeah bro.
If you throw a javelin just right at a low flying F-22 it sucks into the jet engine and downs it.
I've done it.
>>1223378
I like how excited your map is
>>1224159
>They conqoured China
False, they conquered fractured chinese kingdoms with the help of more then 100 000 chinese soldiers from the alliance with the Song dynasty.
>Their record alone proves that the Mongols were a different much more powerful group
Let's see at their "records"
Failed to defeat the Mamlukes 5 times in a row
Failed to invade Japan 2 times in a row.
Failed to invade Vietnam 3 times in a row
Failed to invade the Delhi Sultanate 2 times or more.
And after Hungary was prepared they also failed to defeat them.
>>1223901
Are you retarded?
This is hypothetical
>>1224164
1279 is when when the mongols defeated the Song dynasty. During ONE of battle of song dynasty, an attack on twin cities, the mongols churned up 5000 ships. The chinese use grenades with metals inside that would pierce iron plated armors. The mongols utilized the latest/best seige weapons. The chinese utilized fire tipped arrows.
They would have incorporated those technologies during/after the war. With an even greater army at their disposal, they would literally bring ruins to Roman empire.
The technology gaps is too great between the two to make them equal.
>>1224189
Do you want to see roman empire defeats?
The records are shown by how great they could be. The greatest extent of Roman empire pales in comparison to the greatest extent of Mongol empire. The power gap is too great.
>>1224205
> the mongols churned up 5000 ships
Chinese quality, the chinese ships they used against Japan prove this.
>The mongols utilized the latest/best seige weapons.
Which is why they failed to take any stone castles in Poland and Hungary right? They were not the best at sieges, they were horrible.
>With an even greater army at their disposal
Most of their "armies" were in China and they woulnd't be able to take most of the soldiers in a campaign against the west.
>>1224082
Not sure what youe point is. Historically, all those enemies you listed caused huge trouble to the Romans because they just can't handle horse archers, which the Mongols have plenty of. Not to mention that unlike those groups, the Mongols are actually organized and can send messages across their empire.
Plus you have gunpowder which would make any Roman fortification useless.
>>1224216
>Against Japan
Tsunami wrecked them.
>stone castles
Western mongol campaign.
>armies are useless
fire tipped arrows and iron grenades and fire lances would make anyone into a giant
A 500k of them would rape and destroy the Roman legion of 80K.
>>1224189
The Mongs were the *first* Nomad group to be able to conquer China though.
Earlier there were only opportunistic turks/nomads who'd carve out a dynasty or conquer only the north with a short lived shit dynasty only to be pushed out by the natives.
It should be mentioned that the mongols were masters of psychological warfare too. Terror, fear, deception were used quite often in their battles.
While the Roman empire had a thing for "man to man" fights and had a thing against "cowardly fighting". They would often play with the enemy supply routes to hamper them. They themselves rely lightly on supplis and food, but the enemy with its heavy armor and organized armies absolutely had to have a good supply.
IN short, Roman empire is not as adaptive as Mongol.
>>1224229
>Western mongol campaign.
Failed miserably against stone castles to the point of never taking any.
The cities that fell had wood and earth walls.
That said, this is irrelevant-roman defences are absolute shit, and have almost nothing in common with castles.
The mongols would steamroll roman forts very easily as far as the walls go. It's the large, well armed body of men inside that presents an issue.
>>1224257
Just stop posting.
>>1223378
Of course, the roman armies would be too slow to be able to defeat mongol horse archers, they would just get flanked and surrounded every battle and slaughtered. The Roman empire would be conquered
The only time a horse archer army came close to beating the romans was after a time of serious internal strife. I don't see the mongols being able to take on a unified roman empire at the height of it's power.
>>1224397
Some Roman border forteresses were pretty heavily fortified though. Pic is somewhat related, although shit quality.
>>1224439
They're still shit. Number and placement of towers is universally poor to mediocre, no concentric defenses, defend from the top of the wall instead of shooting from loopholes. They're nowhere near strong enough to enable small groups to hold off the mongols.
Rome loses the battle but probably survives long enough to win the war.
1. OP allowed Byzantine and all Roman technology, which closes the technological gap considerably, and the Byzantine had knowledge of Mongol tactics
2. Scorched Earth tactic
3. Home field and environment advantage
Rome could probably hold the horde off long enough to starve out their horses.
>>1223901
>the roman empire didn't exist in the 1200s
Morons like this actually post on /his/. Unbelievable.
>>1224475
>b-but voltaire said the HRE wasn't roman that means byzantine despite fulfilling all three claims of its original name of eastern roman empire isn't Roman
>this is what some people believe
>>1224482
>holy
>roman
>empire
People don't actually seriously believe they were Romans do they?
The name comes from political saxon dynasty trying to link back to the glory days of Roman past and give himself some form of legitimacy.
There is no relation to between Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire.
There is a direct relationship between the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, but not so much for the Byzantine empire. They don't even have control over Rome. Jesus Christ.
>>1223590
Not being muslim
>>1224831
But that's [spoiler]right[/spoiler]
>>1225529
Exactly
>>1223865
Not even half as often as pop-history retards would have you think.
>>1225539
nah, Rome lasted until 1204
calling the sacked, decrepit city of Constantinople with crumbling walls and the authority to control only what they could see from said walls as well as a couple of backwater Greek towns in the Peloponnese the "Roman Empire" is embarrassing to say the least.
thank god the Ottomans put the poor thing out of it's misery.
>>1227338
The Battle of Manzikert was a mistake.
And they only sacked Constantinople in 1453 due to an accidentally opened gate, causing pandemonium from the defense.
>>1223378
>he thinks all that orange on map is actual territory controlled by the Horde
they didn't exactly function like that or been able to. Romans would absolutely wreck them at their peak when united and going strong. sadly late Romans were like a man in 50s soft around the edges, they allowed local lords to grow too rich and too strong and things like honor and duty to have less value, so they'd very often just let anyone through to save themselves and even earn something. at the peak of Rome, Emperor meant more like a guy you are directly loyal to, not some distant vague divine figure like it has been since Diokletian. fuck, Ill even say late Rome was like the EU in terms of local governing and centralization
Could the Abbasids at their peak beat Rameses II at his peak?
>>1224397
>Failed miserably against stone castles to the point of never taking any.
They would have adapted given enough time and ability to truly allocate appropriate resources. The western Europe adventure was a mere finger in what the full body of the mongols had.
They took heavily fortified areas across Iran and China - far stronger then muh stone castles!
>>1227343
>And they only sacked Constantinople in 1453 due to an accidentally opened gate
meme
>>1223513
Cool. Well, given the Sultanate of Rome had machine guns, battleships, and bolt action rifles, let's just skip ahead and give the win to the turko-romans.
>>1224189
Wouldn't the fact that they fought with Chinese just prove how supperior the Mongols were? They were masters of diplomatic warfare, do you not think this means they mightve take rome with the support of 100,000 Romans? Or support of factions themselves at war with Rome? Even without that support they still could have done it, but the strategic diplomacy only helps.
>>1224189
Hannibal could muster up Romans to fight Romans and whip Roman armies up and down Italy.
>>1223378
>Territory
If you can call it territory.
>Army
Certainly in numbers. The strategy was much better for offensive swarms and hit and run. Maybe not so much so for defensive tactics and occupations (the latter being the reason for "if you can call it territory".)
>Technology
Not even close. As far as metallurgy and weapons, on par, in some ways better, yes, but how many epic-size crumbling Mongol ruins are there about? The Romans built gigantic milling and quarry machines to boot, the core mechanics of which are still in use to this day. What knowledge did the Mongols contribute to mankind? Maybe some horse breeding strategies, and some inspiration for gunpowder weaponry, if that.
Granted, I suppose you can credit them indirectly for European achievements, in that they were one of the major driving forces for uniting them. Same for the Chinese, and to a lesser extent, even the Japs.
But for all their fantastic ability to conquer huge swaths of land, and then immediately abandon it, they didn't achieve a single lasting thing, aside from the results of the terror they spread, both positive and negative. (Okay, maybe The Silk Road, even that was more conquered than created.)
>>1223865
not really: they mostly won against partians in pretty much all the wars they fought. They still lost some big time (like Carrahe)
>>1228241
>>14th century empire that includes fucking china has less tech than a BC empire
You are being a complete and utter moron. This isnt a video game.
>>1228284
>Technology always advances forward, chronologically, and at a constant rate.
>A society that leaves behind no knowledge of value is considered technologically advanced.
If it was a video game, both those things would be true, but you're right, it ain't.
>>1228414
The mongols had access to better steel, engineers, boats and farming techniques than the romans.
The difference between them and the romans is larger than between modern USA and the mongols.
>>1228421
>The difference between them and the romans is larger than between modern USA and the mongols.
Yeah, we're done here.
>>1228425
I accept your surrender.
>>1223393
>Romans seemed dependent on good leadership more than others
Maybe so but the Mongols were even more dependent on it. Until Genghis time they were divided tribes in a constant state of war, and after him they would never unite as "the mongols" again.
The only meaningful question is "could Genghis at his peak have defeated rome at its peak?"
>>1228454
About 100 years of mongol reign.
Genghis Khan died 1227. Their greatest extend was 1279 as a whole group (fractures started).
The eastern Yuan dynasty lasted about 97 years.
Roughly 200 years of mongol reign.
Probably.
Remember, this isn't mongols at full force
Well, let's put it like this:
Romans had maybe a ballista
Mongols had gunpowder
>>1230982
Byzantine.
Mongols destroy Rome at first few fights but then romans get into full punic wars mode and fucking annihilate mongorians each time they see them.
>>1231007
>Roman
>>1231034
It's what OP said mate.
Also,
>Implying
>>1227547
The Turks would win by default since they are both sides.
>>1224542
It was a successor state, and Charlemagne considered himself roman.
>>1231025
They could bare fund couple hundred ships that's with private investors and shit.
The Mongols in one battle produced over 5000 ships. They had plenty of naval fights over the course and plenty of ships produced that would completely dwarf Roman empire Navy by multiple factors.
>>1223378
any empire from a millenium after the romans' peak could have defeated them. it's a thousand years in the future.
>>1231439
He is including Byzantine.
>>1231454
Byzantine ended around 1800s. They are basically nearing industrial revolution and at scientific revolution.
>>1231500
Uh, kind of overshooting it there, bud by three centuries.
Absolutely astonishing bait op. You got everything. Byzantines, horse archers, mongols. Some bastard had the audacity to imply the ottoman empire was roman. You even got
>
>
>
This was an amazing shit storm.
>>1231521
I should have been more specific.
>>1231374
>The Mongols in one battle produced over 5000 ships
How is this even possible
>>1223378
go to sleep, Dan Carlin
>>1231365
I can consider myself a Roman, but I'm not. America can consider itself Roman state, but its not.
>>1232861
Massive labor force and ship builders. It was for a battle on a twin river city in one of their Song campaigns.
>>1224475
please explain
>H>R>E is obviously not Roman
Byzantine is not Roman, it's Greek
...
>>1228421
>The mongols had access to better steel, engineers, boats and farming techniques than the romans.
Farming techniques, maybe, but I call bullshit on the others.
>>1223590
French
>>1224475
>Byzantium, despite having a completely different government system, language, and culture, is a continuation of the Roman Empire.
>The numerous successor states of the Mongol Empire, despite being created and ruled by Mongols, speaking Mongolic languages, using Mongol tactics, having leaders who were descendants of Genghis Khan, etc., are for some reason not a continuation of the Mongol Empire
>>1234885
you'd have many different continuations of the Mongol Empire since it split up the way it did though
more Diadochi than a continuation
and yes the ERE is the Roman Empire
there really isn't any way around it
>>1234917
To claim the ERE is the Roman Empire, you must also admit that the hordes are the Mongol Empire lest you be committing a logical fallacy. After all, the ERE was created to specifically service the Eastern portion of the Roman Empire while the hordes were created to specifically service their respective areas (ex: Ilkhanate for Perisa).
>>1234917
>Continuations of the Mongol Empire not continuations because they split up.
>The Eastern Roman Empire is a continuation of the Roman Empire. It's not like the Roman Empire split up at any point.
>>1234953
>>1234942
I was under the impression that hordes operated differently to sedentary Empires but alright, was there an unbroken chain connecting one of the rulers of the various split hordes to Genghis Khan? You claim that each piece was a continuation of the whole but that doesn't really follow, would you call the Diadochi the continuation of Alexander's Empire rather than the successors of it? why?
also the OG Tetrarchy operated in a way that it was still unified under Diocletian, after that each warred against each other until the Empire was under one leader again
The Western and Eastern Roman Empire were both under two Emperors with equal power but it was still bound together, after the collapse of the Western half not too long after the split efforts were still made to retake what were the de jure lands of the now only Roman Empire, not an eastern half anymore but the whole lot
how is this so difficult to understand? do you just enjoy being contrarian?
>>1234989
There were multiple successors and successors to those successors. As in direct parental/cultural lineage.
Byzantines are neither culturally similar, nor ethnically, nor linguistically, nor lineagely similar.
Meanwhile, all the "mongol empire didn't survive" are from the same fucking culture/lineage.
>>1235007
>Byzantines are neither culturally similar, nor ethnically, nor linguistically, nor lineagely similar.
culturally to who? what is roman culture?
ethnically to who? what is the roman ethnicity?
linguistically in that Heraclius changed the official language because the Roman Empire then consisted largely of Greek-speaking peoples? why is that of importance?
>lineagely similar.
what le fug are you talking about, you think up to Theodosius that the Roman Empire was ruled by a single dynasty?
>Meanwhile, all the "mongol empire didn't survive" are from the same fucking culture/lineage.
where's the unbroken chain as with the Roman Empire though? as far as I know the most powerful just took their share of the horde and land and fucked off, no real continuation there, just successor states as, I repeat, we see with the Diadochi
>>1235007
The ERE was around for about a thousand years, so of course its culture would evolve. Who is to say the Roman culture, with capital set at Constantinople, wouldn't have evolved in a similar fashion?
>>1223378
make mongolia great again
>>1235031
>where's the unbroken chain as with the Roman Empire though?
The splitting of West and East
As for the Mongols, their "split" happened as a result of ruling different peoples (like that of Rome). A Mongol ruling over muslims in Persia obviously won't abide by the rules created by Mongols ruling over Confucians. Nonetheless, they were always Mongols (many related to Genghis Khan himself) and continued to follow Mongol traditions and speak Mongolic languages.
>>1235034
And the Mongol Empire expanded farther than the ERE ever could within much less time. The Mongol Empire obviously had cultural evolution, yet this is cited as a reason for its successor states not being continuations. Therefore, your argument is contradictory.
>>1223378
no
depends
Give Rome Marius or Caesar and lets say the Mongols had Ghengis and Jebe, Rome would have overcome.
Romans literally could not stop fucking, they had massive families and the means to feed them. The Mongols had large numbers but by no means could they replenish these numbers if they were lost.
Keep in mind the Romans had that never quit attitude and hatred when it came to "indomitable" foes.
The stronger the Mongols got the fiercer and cleverer the Romans would have been.
Also the Romans used Auxillaries like no other, the Mongol forces were pretty much always horsemen.
Also that civilian bullshit they pulled wouldn't have worked on the Romans. See Alesia.
Romans also went the Extra mile in terms of supply and encampment which would have negated a large Mongol advantage that of attacking when the opposition is unprepared, Romans were near always prepared and the only instances where they were caught off guard in a tremendous way was when negotiating terrain that would not favor the Mongols.
The Mongols have two options to win, Grind out and play economically, or switch the method of warfare from near entirely horseback to adopting massive amounts of Auxillaries, not just horsemen or a few regiments of infantry but near completely shifting the soldier balance so as to be able to formulate a wider variety of tactics.
Roman defensive capabilities were far better than Islamic or Chinese defensive capabilities.
The few instance the Mongols went against a truly defensive structure, I believe it was some noble Korean last stand, the Mongols lost a lot of men compared to the defenders losses, the Mongols dominated non-military defenses, Rome specialized military defense.
>>1235114
you mean the split where they remained in close contact as allies, were called two halves of the same empire pending possible reunification had the West not fallen so soon after, and where the official language in both was still Latin going by your shitty parameters for what it means to be a REAL Roman or the REAL Roman Empire?
fact is the West fell and the East remained, was no longer just the East but the whole Roman Empire
>As for the Mongols, their "split" happened as a result of ruling different peoples (like that of Rome).
that wasn't the reason for the split
