Who would win in a battle?
The Mongols under Genghis Khan and Subutai versus the Roman Republic under Scopio.
Both have 100,000 men and both at peak strength
>>846791
Mongols
>>846791
What's the terrain/location?
>>846791
The Mongol cavalry would have been unlike anything from Roman times. They would get savaged.
>>846884
terrain
>limiting Roman troops and tactics to be only scipionic maniple.
>no cohorts or legionaires.
C'mon man at least let them get the Marian reforms or Augustan.
Well, the two forces would be oddly counterbalanced.
Roman infantry were well equipped to defend against arrows using the tortoise formation. But the Mongols would have made much use of the increases mobility and would have strikes with unconventional hit and run tactics instead of assaulting the Romans head on.
At one time Rome lost an entire army to the Parthians, who also mobilized a large force of horse archers and Calvary.
The legions were really best against other infantry units.
>>846892
Scythians and Parthians were both nomadic peoples famed for their horse archers.
>>847025
The Mongols were also thousands of years more advanced than the Scythians and Parthians.
>>846791
>Pitting two of the greatest military generals/leaders against Scipio
Scipio is brilliant but he can't take this.
>>846791
I think you'd have to define how much cavalry they have and their equipment, not just manpower, as well as the field of battle itself
>>847054
>Implying a few thousand years is that long when you're talking about nomadic pastoralist.
They're not exactly known for being technologically advanced.
>>847093
Mongols had stirrups, gunpowder, Chinese and Persian engineer captives, and thousands of years of more developed strategy.
>my little pony beats i am legion
when will this meme die?
>>846892
>>846958
They completely wrecked the parthians more often than not.
>>847054
They used the same tactics and often the same weapons.
The mongol archers would be somewhat better because they can stand in the saddle, but their actual advantages come from chinese and arab subjects.
>>847065
Scipio was fucking brilliant. Given enough time to work with his men, he absolutely could win.
>>847096
>gunpowder
Really not significant in mongol hands.
>and thousands of years of more developed strategy.
That's not how that works.
>Chinese and Persian engineer captives
Actually matters.
>>847146
>Really not significant in mongol hands.
>The Mongols used gunpowder during Ogdai Khan's invasion of Europe.[18] "Fire catapults", "pao", and "naphtha-shooters" were used.[19][20][21][22]
The Romans wouldn't know what the fuck would be going on and think it's some kind of magic before they figure it out, and their own horse cavalry is going to be spooked by it.
>>847146
Mongols would win. An army with no supply lines and requiring no salaries, running only on war booty, vs. A mostly infantry formation that required literally tons of grain and water everyday, requiring getting paid regularly or else there would be mutiny.
Honestly, the Romans would lose only because they require a vast logistical infrastructure, not by any true tactical merits on part of the Mongols. Nothings a better counter for cavalry than well trained and disciplined infantry, but they lack the mobility and the versatility of mounted troops.
>>847096
Stirrup meme needs to die.
>>847731
Rome would win. I mean Rome gets defeated, and then adopts mongol tactics and technology and manages to recruit half the mongols and then wins.
>>847752
It would likely be more helpful in helping a Mongol shoot his bow than using a lance. You can put your legs and your back into drawing the string, rather than just your back and shoulders. You also have a somewhat more stable shooting platform.
>>847754
You can't adapt Mongol technology or tactics. Their unique ability to wage war all the time is the result of them never having a sedentary economy or a special warrior nobility or class. They are a nomadic people. Their skills with the bow on horseback requires lifelong exposure and retraining. They don't do standing armies. They just roll forward and conquer. Their whole lifestyle is dedicated to pasturing and warring. You can't adopt that advantage because that advantage is completely cultural. Unless you suggest Romans abandon cities and agriculture and become light cavalry.
>>847754
or they civil war themselves the moment bread and circuses get scarce, then live happily under mongol rule
>>847767
The Romans literally did adopt Nomadic tribes technology and fighting style.
>>846791
>Who would win
Go back to History Channel m8
>>847801
No, they hired barbarian tribes to guard their borders for land. But they are still overwhelmingly foot formations. What tactics did they adopt from Goths and Vandals, when the Romans have wrote the book on and masters of heavy infantry?
>>846958
>Roman infantry were well equipped to defend against arrows using the tortoise formation
The Testudo formation was used in siege. It was never meant to be used in open field.
You are stupid.
>>846791
The more you know about the arms and armor of the people the Mongols defeated the more impressive what they did seems. They weren't just using meme tactics like some people seem to think, as they also crushed other steppe armies that were familiar with their style of warfare such as the Cumans. Still I would have liked to see how they would do against a unified army under the command of a true genius, rather than the rather ad hoc fuedal armies they faced in the west.
I still think the Mongols would win pretty easily. Just look at the havoc Atilla was able to wreck against later Roman armies with 10-20k men.
>>846791
Mongols absolutely fucking destroy the romans.
The end.
>antiquity era army led by a guy famous for rampaging an almost undefended Carthage and eventually defeating an exhausted and weakened Hannibal
Vs
>Two of the greatest generals of an army that made great use of tactics with a thousand years worth of development over the Roman Empire
Yeah totally fair
>>847819
They had entire forces of horse archers dude
>>846958
>At one time Rome lost an entire army to the Parthians, who also mobilized a large force of horse archers and Calvary.
if you are referring to Carrhae that was in no small part because Crassus behaved like a total retard and had literally no idea what to do when he found himself in the middle of the desert getting constantly harassed by Parthians
>>846883
Yup. Easy. Compound Bows OP.
>>850525
Still not the same thing as your entire culture being a mobile military encampment.
You fundamentally misunderstand how nomads work.
Every man is a warrior, they don't need to hold castles or farm because they simply hunt and loot everything they need.
These people live on horseback, and to them a horse is better than a house.
They ride as easily as they walk, and learn to shoot from the saddle from before they are even half grown because it is their lifestyle.
Sedentary mounted cavalry simply cannot compare, because they aren't literally engaged in a complete cultural symbiosis with the horse. - Settled folk just don't have that level of horse-centricity in their day to day lives.
>>850794
Yeah that's why they got consistently BTFO by sedentary Muslims fighting the same way in Egypt
Mongols are overrated
>>850416
>antiquity era army led by a guy famous for rampaging an almost undefended Carthage and eventually defeating an exhausted and weakened Hannibal
Yeah, ignore him winning in fucking iberia.
A quagmire that makes Vietnam look like a pleasant walk in the woods.
>>850794
>Sedentary mounted cavalry simply cannot compare
Except it beat the avars, beat the magyars, and beat the mongols.
Sedentary cavalry forces can absolutely beat nomadic cavalry.
>>847025
You know that the mongols were fucking up all other nomads they encountered
They were on a different level completely
>>852450
1. You cannot field as many horse. Cavalry is expensive. Horses are expensive in a sedentary culture. This is a fact.
2. You completely missed my point. They need money to pay those people. You need to raise an army and have them integrated into it so you can use them effectively. You need supplies. The money and the men and the supplies all come from an economic system where most people are not actively engaged in warfare. These people need you to defend their stationary homes to be productive and help you sustain your war effort. An army can't run on an empty stomach and no cash to pay them. This is how you can't a general to declare himself emperor and march on the capital to pay himself.
A horse nomad culture is always at war, always ready to wage war. You can't tear up their roads because they don't have any. You can't burn their farms because they don't have any. You can't kill their heards because their scouts can see you days before you get there. You can't dismantle their army's logistics because they pillage what they don't have and need little else. A sedentary civilization is comparatively richer but much harder to defend.
So good luck defending against nomads. All you can do is defend and bribe and intrigue. This is how the Chinese did it, bribing the petty nomads to kill rising rulers, until one man named Temujin decided why should we accept crumbs when we can take the whole thing.
>>850832
The Mongols under batu and hulagu are a shadow of the force that Genghis took to the middle east.
>>850832
nigga please the Mamluks were Turkic and Caucasian slave warriors well versed in steppe tactics
