Post by Laurent de Gouvion on Dec 7, 2016 13:50:56 GMT
On a tactical standpoint, a small force of Parthian cavalry (cataphracts and horse archers) did defeat Marcus Crassus' Roman army in Carrhae. In Carrhae, the legions failed against the cavalry force because they could not take care of both horse archers and cataphracts (heavy cavalry). The legions could form testudo and be secure from arrows, yet be incredibly limited in combat against heavy cavalry. Granted, Crassus wasn't the best commander and he was led into a trap, but the Parthian force was only meant to delay the Romans. The Mongols would probably use the same tactics and unless Rome could field more skirmishers/cavalry, Mongols would win.
On a logistical standpoint, while Mongols could live off the land their equipment would not. Mongols mainly relied on Chinese siege equipment. If the Romans could destroy them, the Mongols would not be able to attack, if the Romans applied a Fabian strategy (delaying the enemy). While cutting supply lines is possible, as Yi Sun Sin said, I don't believe the Mongols would have the men to encircle EVERY Roman fort. In fact, the main Roman breadbaskets, Egypt and Carthage would need a strong navy to attack which the Mongols didn't have. Attacking Rome instantly is possible, but the Tiber would provide a supply route from sea, which the Mongols couldn't take out.
If the Romans were careful, they would win. In the end, I think it'd depend on the politics of both nations. A careful Roman general could be sacked if he lost popularity in public, thus giving command to a general who'd charge blindly, only to die on the field of battle. Maybe the Emperor himself would get assassinated as well. That being said, there were huge internal conflicts between Mongols, mainly concerning succession.
The downfall of Khwarzem was when their army was lured into battle and as long as the Romans could avoid that they would win. However, I don't see Mongols defeating Romans, and even if the Romans were defeated, the Mongols would not be able to hold on to it. Their cultures were too different to assimilate, and assimilation had always been the strategy of holding regions.
On a logistical standpoint, while Mongols could live off the land their equipment would not. Mongols mainly relied on Chinese siege equipment. If the Romans could destroy them, the Mongols would not be able to attack, if the Romans applied a Fabian strategy (delaying the enemy). While cutting supply lines is possible, as Yi Sun Sin said, I don't believe the Mongols would have the men to encircle EVERY Roman fort. In fact, the main Roman breadbaskets, Egypt and Carthage would need a strong navy to attack which the Mongols didn't have. Attacking Rome instantly is possible, but the Tiber would provide a supply route from sea, which the Mongols couldn't take out.
If the Romans were careful, they would win. In the end, I think it'd depend on the politics of both nations. A careful Roman general could be sacked if he lost popularity in public, thus giving command to a general who'd charge blindly, only to die on the field of battle. Maybe the Emperor himself would get assassinated as well. That being said, there were huge internal conflicts between Mongols, mainly concerning succession.
The downfall of Khwarzem was when their army was lured into battle and as long as the Romans could avoid that they would win. However, I don't see Mongols defeating Romans, and even if the Romans were defeated, the Mongols would not be able to hold on to it. Their cultures were too different to assimilate, and assimilation had always been the strategy of holding regions.
.jpg)
