The Roman War Machine

Great Debates
1

Ok, here is something a lil bit different.

I watched Gladiator last night, and it reminded me of a question I’ve had for over a year.

What if the Roman War Machine at the height of Rome’s power was to meet the Mongolian Army at the height of the Mongol’s power? Keep in mind the drastically different fighting style:
The Mongols used horses, and their armour consisted of silk and leather. They had large weapons, they acted fast, and women were also in the army to finish off the victims. THey had the largest Empire in the history of the world. Of course there are more details then that, but I can’t remember the specifics right now.
The Romans had a very structured army, and mainly consited of foot soldiers. They mainly fought with swords and arrows.
Now, the Mongols were fighting to take over land, the Romans were fighting for honor, pride, and the glory of Rome.
Who would win? Greed or Honor?
Personally I feel that the Romans would win, just because they had a reason. They would be protecting the empire they loved more then anything.

2

Honor and love of an Empire?

Oh, that’s why they took over everything from the Forum to Britain, France,Germany, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Greece, The Balkan States, Egypt, Algeria, Morrocco and created a Roman Lake of the Mediterranian? Fighting for what is right? I do not think you can argue that that was so. I am a Latin student and am a big fan of the whole Empire, but I do not really think that you can see that Romans loved their Empire. Civil wars went on ad nauseum as private armies occasionally attacked Rome itself, slaves revolted, and the elite fought for power; a key theme if the film Gladiator.

By the way, what was Gladiator like on the violence/sex/language-o-meter? I am trying to organize a bang up Latin Club trip to it before school gets out.

3

[Minor quibble]Wasn’t the British Empire larger?[/minor quibble]

I’ve gotta go with the Romans, unless the Mongols have the element of surprise, which I believe was their greatest weapon. The Romans were such a disciplined fighting force, I have to believe they would have found a way to win any battle they saw coming.

4

Yes the Romans would have won. A grope of infantry has alwase been good at nailing cavelry.
1:Horses take up supplys that could be used on more infantry.
2:With a shelded formation of infanty the cavelry couldn’t get close or there horses would get killed.
3:Cavelry is a bigger target of archers.
As for the romans they also had a good advantge with there shelds, the mongol’s arrows couldn’t penitrate the iron.

5

How about an example of the Romans fighting a similar enemy.
While Caesar was busy conquering Gaul, his colleague Crassus was doing his best to extend Roman control east. This put him in opposition to the Parthians.
The Parthians had a cavalry based military. But, unlike the Mongols, they had both heavy ( armored for mounted hand to hand ) and light ( archers on horses ). However the bows used by the Parthians were wood, less effective than the horn and sinew bows used by the Mongols.

Crassus marched out onto the plains of Mesopotamia and met a Parthian army.
Crassus had around 36,000 men, 4000 of whom were cavalry ( mostly Gauls ) and 4000 of whom were foot archers.

He faced a Parthian army of about 12,000 cavalry. Most of these were horse-archers. The Partians refused to engage in hand to hand, and the infantry could not force them. The Gaulish cavalry was destroyed and the survivors fled to the Roman infantry square. The Parthians inundated the Romans with arrows until the infantry square broke. Most of the Roman army was captured, many more were killed along with their leader, and few made it back to Roman territory.

This engagement took place on an open plain. The tactics are different in different terrain.

pepperlandgirl,where is your hypothetical battle taking place?

6

I think the Roman army was the best fighting force ever assembled. They likely would win, unless the terrian put them at a serious disadvantage to a cavalry, not that the Romans were unfamiliar with the concept of mounted battle.

[hijack]People have bickered about the “largest/greatest/strongest/most powerful” empire for a long time. I personally think the USA takes that crown since we maintain the strongest most overwelming sphere of influence in the history of the world, amplified by the way technology has “shrunk” the world. Money of course being the most powerful weapon. The Mongols’ empire isn’t very well recorded and there is much debate about what its borders actually were. Also it can be agrued that the armies would raid the new lands, pillage and retreat “claiming” the land as part of the empire, but leaving no troops or influence in the area. The Romans maintained definate control over heavily populated and fiercely competitive land. And may have conquered the most land as well, depending on the historian you ask. The British had the most far reaching empire for sure, when speaking of land occupation. I’d be suprised to hear that they claimed a greater area, unless the whole of the New World they colonized (ie from Atlantic to Pacific accros the US and Canada, even though they never settled or explored it) was included.[/hijack]

I would say that the Romans were the most continually contested Army and as such would be presumed to be more than capable of stiffling the Mongol cavalry. And it might be critical to state who was advancing on whom. As the defense has a major advantage.

Threads like this make me want to read a complete history of the world…

7

Just a couple of things to note here:

  1. While Crassus was darn good at making money, he always felt he was lacking the big military victories of Caesar and Pompei. He successfully, very successfully put down a rebellion with minimal Roman casualties, but in a totally unspectacular way. And then Pompei I believe (could be Caesar, been a while since I read about this in Latin class) came in and basically finished the job off, and got all the credit. He always kind of had an inferiority complex in the triumvirate, and was always looking for a big military victory that would earn him the respect he felt the other two members got. This may have made him overanxious against the Parthians.

  2. The Parthians were incredibly skilled fighters. Only under Augustus Caesar’s reign were they finally subdued, and even then, it wasn’t at all easy. I forget if Octavian did it himself, or through Drusus or Tiberius (Hmm, maybe I should whip out that Eutropius. Oh well, too lazy.). When they finally were conquered though, it was a really big deal. Crassus had lost the Roman standards, and the Romans got them back, and they were all happy. Losing the standards was a bad thing. They even made what I guess we might call commemorative coins; there are coins with an inscription of: “CAESAR AVGVSTVS SIGN(is)RECEPT(is)”
    and a kneeling Parthian returning the signa. Symbolically, it was kinda important for the Romans.

Just felt like showing off my knowledge a bit. :wink:

8

Just saw it – excellent film! I’m not much of a violence fan, but this one is worth it. Not really any sex or bad language, but plenty of (meaningful) violence and some pretty horrific parts where you know exactly what happened without actually seeing the gore.

As for the debate, I don’t know enough to comment, but would love to hear if what I just saw was reasonably accurate to history.

9

I should have made this disclaimer at the beginning. I have a general knowledge of World History, garnered over a year ago, although I do watch the History Channel when I can.
However, I DO know that historians estimate that the Mongolian Empire was the largest in history. I thought it was England too, but you have to think that they had all of Russia and China, and those are two VERY large countries. It may not have been the most powerful, but it was the largest.
I never gave much thought to the terrain…maybe someone who knows more about it than I can decide that.

Yes, I do believe the Roman army was fighting for honor. REMEMBER I said the at the heighth of the ROman Empire…at it’s most glorious everybody was very patriotic…or at least the majority. Obviously it was not a perfect Empire, there was plenty of intrigue and corruption in the government, but the people did love their Empire. Like I said, I watch a lot of the History Channel and the majority of my claims are from their fine programming.

10

That and ruthlessness.

And a fanatical devotion to the pope.

11

A fanatical devotion to the pope? Is that joke I do not understand? Please, explain.

12

Cardinal Biggles, the rack!

http://user.cu-muc.de/alien/files/sketche/spanish.txt

13

Well, on anything close to open terrain the Mongols have the edge. And the edge is mobility. The Legion would have to overcome a large disadvantatge in both strategic and tactical mobility. The nomad herdsmen could travel hundreds of miles in a few short days. Roman legions were lucky to make 100 miles in a week. With the strategic advantage the Horde is likely to have the honor of picking the battlefield.
On the battlefield itself, infantry , heavy or light, could not close with the lighthorsemen. If the Legion stayed in its fortified camp, it would not be in immediate danger. But they would not be able to leave. Like, to get food or anything.

But in uneven terrain the odds certainly go up for the Legion. Even poorly trained infantry can overcome cavalry in a narrow area, as the Swiss taught Leopold of Austria in the narrow pass of Morgarten in 1315 CE.

Some ideas, not showing off or anything. :wink:
No, really. I didn’t even mention logistics. :slight_smile:

14

Pepper, it’s a joke about Catholics–Roman Catholics, get it?

FWIW, I think the Mongols would have kicked Rome’s butt the same way the Parthians did. The reason the Parthians and the Mongols won all their battles (where they used mounted archers, at least) was that they had a virtually unlimited supply of arrows. The Parthians won that particular battle that was mentioned because they had something like 10,000 camels (yes, that’s ten thousand) loaded down with arrows, resupplying the archers. All infantry would be able to do would be to bunch together and hold out as long as possible, which was what eventually happened. Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.

The Mongols kicked everybody else’s butt in Christendom in the 13th century for the same reason–infantry can’t withstand a concerted, determined attack by mounted archers. All the Mongols had to do was keep running in circles around the heavily armored knights, shooting a rain of arrows into them.

The Saracens (Turks) did the same thing during the Crusades. They had speed and mobility.

Pepper, you keep saying the Romans fought for “glory”. I think maybe you’ve been watching Ben Hur and Spartacus too much. Yes, there was about a 100-year period, just before the birth of Christ, when Rome really was a glorious Republic, but as soon as Julius Caesar dumped the earlier republican ideals and declared himself Emperor (which is what “caesar” means), the end-of-game clock started counting down for the “glory that was Rome”. After that preliminary honeymoon, Roman soldiers fought for the same reason soldiers always fight–because they got paid. If they didn’t get paid, sometimes they mutinied and went home.

Also–what 2sense said.

15

Minor nit - “Caesar” did not originally mean “emperor.”

“Caesar” was part Julius’ name: “Gaius Julius Caesar.” He was never the Emperor of Rome, but Dictator-for-Life and consul for ten years at the time of his death - both extraordinary appointments, showing the trend of Roman Republic to the Empire, but not yet recognised generally.

His adopted son Octavianus, who took the name Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus Augustus, was the first Emperor. Since several of the succeeding emperors also had connections to the Cesar family (albeit increasingly slight as time went on), the term “Caesar” became a synonom for “Emperor,” as did “Augustus.”

I believe the actual Latin term was “Imperator,” which meant the supreme war-leader, but I could be wrong.

16

NTM, for the record, I never watched Ben Hur for Spartacus. Every historical reference I make comes from the History Channel. I love that channel, I think it’s one of the best reasons to own a TV.
Hmm, maybe I should revise what I was saying. Ok, do away with Honor, let’s just talk about being territorial. Once an area became part of the Roman Empire, they did not was to leave, (Except the Jews for the most part) because they were allowed to keep their own religion (for the most part), had the full protection of the Empire, etc etc. I think the ROmans would have fought harder because they would not have wanted to lose all of the good things they had.

17

I’m still not buying it. Does anyone have a source? Russia is big, but not as big as it looks on flat maps, because of the funky things that happen when you try to represent a globe on a flat surface. The British Empire at its height included: Canada, Australia, India (including modern Pakistan and Bangladesh), South Africa, Rhodesia, Kenya, chunks of China, Burma, as well as numerous smaller possessions (e.g., British Guinea, Bermuda, Gibraltar, etc., etc.). That’s an awful lot of land area. (And I’m leaving out their Middle Eastern possessions because I am not clear on the dates involved.) I still don’t think the Mongols matched the Brits.

[/Hijack]

18

Nice try, but wrong.

Kaylasdad was making a Monty Python reference. See my link in my last response.

19

Fron http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHEMPIRE/YUAN.HTM

  • The Mongolian Empire was perhaps the largest empire in human history in terms of geographical expanse. It extended west
    to east from Poland to Siberia, and north to south from Moscow to the Arabian peninsula and Siberia to Vietnam. For all that,
    Genghis Khan was primarily interested in conquering China because of its great wealth. *

From http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2532/page5.html
*
At its height the empire covered an area
from modern day Korea, China, Russia, the Middle East, India, and all the
land in between. However in many ways the enormity of the Mongol
Empire is what would ultimately destroy it *

Ok, that’s what I could find. If it’s not enough to convince you that the Mongolian empire was larger, then get back to me, and I will find more stats.

20

Ok, two issues, first about Mongolian empire size. They really never controlled all of China- only the north east. And Empire size isn’t all that important- it’s much more about what one gets out, which, in the case of the mongols, was nil, while in the Roman or British example, there was a huge amount of goods and people available for, well, exploitaion. So, which is more important, land area or population density?
Now, about the military question. It would possibly be a standoff, or more likely an incredibly bloody mongolian defeat. See, the Mongols come streaming out across the steps of Russia, and cut down the 3 legions (60k men) sent to stop them. From there, they head north to sack Poland, which is a mistake since Germany is rallying fast. Then they come charging into Prussia. And die. Hills. Forest. Lakes and rivers. 300 Light, mounted bowmen could not stand up to half their number in expeirenced woodsmen, laying down traps and hiding with crossbows (had those been invented? Oh well…) in the bushes. Of course, that would not happen, because the numbers involved are simply too large for that. Now, as was mentioned, the Mongols move incredibly fast- too fast to bring up seige weapons. Now, strategic surprise is out of the question here- Rome is just too big. Tactical surprise, as in, denying their enemy knowledge of where the attack will come. But Rome has vast resources, and, in its heyday (sp?), was not hindered by coruption, so it could well contend with surpirse by simply reinforcing and fortifying the whole border. Now, what about the pitched battle? One could argue that the mongols have in fact had experience in taking fortified cities, such as those of the Persian empire (hell ,they cracked the great wall- but that was with the help of foreign engineers.) But Persia was taken by surprise…but there’s no real good argument here, except that, well, Persia wasn’t so impressive, right? Right Dan, that’s real convincing. It all boils down to terrain, and time. Persia wins in 6 months, or dies. (Sorry about jumping my ideas around,but I usually don’t fully think posts out before I, well, post) See, the perfect analogy here is Hitler’s Germany to Stalin’s Russia (Mongols= Germany) One’s military is incredibly mobile, but geared only for a fast war, not a long one of attrition and replacement. The mongols have no deep pool of men (or, more importantly, horses) to call upon. I’ll leave it up to others to decide if the mongols could do it, it’s too hot for further thought