Who is the best Ancient Warrior

[Hawk Moth 390]

Romans for sure. One on one, they might lose a lot of fights, but their strength is in their organization and tactics. They were so far above the rest of the world that once Rome fell it took centuries to for everyone else to catch up. Discipline can annihilate numbers. The battle of Watling Street, where hundreds of thousands of Britons were butchered by 10,000 Romans proves that. The Roman Legions at the height of the Empire were killing machines.

[Silver fox 117 49]

Fixed it no more pirates, gunpowder is just too op I guess lol. It needs to be nerfed so badly like really badly. And sorry for broken poll they need to fix that.

[RWB 229]

Mongols vs Romans isn't really a battle. The Mongol infantry were superior in tough terrain(they were marvelous at mountains), their cavalry archers has no real counter among the roman forces(meaning that outside that tough terrain? The poor romans get annihilated even worse), their heavy weaponry(catapults, ballistae, and so on) is also superior, they have basic gunpowder for explosive purposes(which blows the romans shield formations to heck), Superior order transferral(could govern several battles from a distance using flag symbols and win them), and there isn't ONE roman that can rival the tactical juggernaut that is Tsubedei/Subotai.

 

There's a reason why the Mongols ran roughshod over enemies far more advanced than the romans.

 

 

 

And just to make one thing clear:

 

 

The mongols would themselves be annihilated utterly if fighting a more modern army in the style of the caroleans(i.e. effective rifle armies)- despite far bigger numbers(they would need insane numbers to win). These people were more mobile on foot, their cavalry more deadly(Livdragonerna- "Life-Dragoons", more along the lines of "Royal Dragoons" were especially devastating), they had mobile, small cannons that could decimate the lines of cavalry, and large cannons that would decimate any attempt from the mongols at fortifying their position.

 

War evolves.

Edited May 21, 2013 by RWB

[Sky Warden 2,243]

Fixed it no more pirates, gunpowder is just too op I guess lol. It needs to be nerfed so badly like really badly. And sorry for broken poll they need to fix that.

How can I vote in that website?

 

Aye. MONGOLIAN MANGUDAI!

 

Please note, any Roman fan out there, that this is Roman Centurion against Mongols (The Mangudai I suppose). That means that it's an infantry against cavalry archer battle. So, no Equites or any Roman cavalry. No Triarii either.

 

The Mongol will win easily. Like I said in my previous post, Centurion isn't very effective against cavalry. Historical records have shown this. The Roman Legionaries often got crushed into pieces by enemy cavalry. Some of Roman's worst defeats were caused by enemy cavalry, mainly cavalry archer. The Mongol is much more advanced and better than the Parthian and Hun (responsible for the fall of the Rome).

 

The Testudo formation isn't that invincible against missile attack. That formation needs time to recover when one of the shield bearers fall. There's also enough hole in the formation for arrows to go through. Not to mention the accuracy and the shoot range of the Mongols.

 

Just say, the battle (same numbers and regular battle field) may go like this. Both forces march. The Mangudai starts raining the Centurion with arrow, just to initiate their attack. Maybe just two or three stream. The Centurion, in their best sense, will use the Testudo formation to protect themselves against the arrows, which is very reasonable. While the Centurion is immobile (actually they still can move, but imagine how difficult it is to move in such formation) the Mangudai surrounds the Testudo formation. They continue shooting their arrows from any direction.

 

Quick note : they can't throw their pillum during the Testudo.

 

As far as I know, the Testudo has a hole on the back of the formation, so that may be a good target. Some Centurion will fall, but they still can keep their formation if they're good enough. They won't break their Testudo to charge the Mangudai. Too risky. When finally the Testudo goes weak, because of the fallen Centurions or just panic, the Mangudai will charge them. The Centurion is very vulnerable to cavalry charges while in the Testudo.

 

Don't say that Mangudai is only good at archery. They also have decent melee weapons and charging skill.

 

End of battle.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Sky Warden

[swordsman 191]

me i giveing it to  Samurai/shinobi ( in real life they work together like the CIA and US special forces). A little history:A ninja was a covert agent or mercenary in feudal Japan who specialized in unorthodox warfare. The functions of the ninja included espionage, sabotage, infiltration, and assassination, and open combat in certain situations. Their covert methods of waging war contrasted the ninja with the samurai, who observed strict rules about honor and combat(some what true,samurai did run form loseing battles to live to fight again and did other things like that) .  The shinobi proper, a specially trained group of spies and mercenaries, appeared in the Sengoku or "warring states" period, in the 15th century,  but antecedents may have existed in the 14th century,  and possibly even in the 12th century (Heian or early Kamakura era).

 

In the unrest of the Sengoku period (15th–17th centuries), mercenaries and spies for hire became active in the Iga Province and the adjacent area around the village of Kōga, and it is from their ninja clans that much of our knowledge of the ninja is drawn. Following the unification of Japan under the Tokugawa shogunate (17th century), the ninja faded into obscurity, being replaced by the Oniwabanshū body of secret agents.By the time of the Meiji Restoration (1868), the tradition of the shinobi had become a topic of popular imagination and mystery in Japan. Ninja figured prominently in folklore and legend, and as a result it is often difficult to separate historical fact from myth. Some legendary abilities purported to be in the province of ninja training include invisibility, walking on water, and control over the natural elements. As a consequence, their perception in western popular culture in the 20th century was based more on such legend and folklore than on the historical spies of the Sengoku period.

 

 

A lot of the things you have hear about ningas (like the ninga sword which really did not exist tell the 1964s moives) are storys. think about it, if you are a covert agent would you carry a weapon that shows you are a ninga or a sword (wakizashi) that civilians carry so you look like everyone else? 

 

just about everyone weapons they carried like the Naginata ,yumi bow,Katana,wakizashi, tachi  are great killing weapns  that are fast, strong, you could pull of accuracy cuts and the swords they used were evolving weapons. There are Dōtanuki Katanas which   translates to, sword that cuts through torsos. While samurai routinely tested their blades on the bodies of convicted criminals to judge their cutting ability, dōtanuki blades were renowned for cutting through the bodies of armored opponents.

They just kept working on their weapons, skill and armored to get the best they could have.  Also you have to remember samurai were just as good with their bows as they were with their swords and bowman were used against gunman longer then swords were. Yeah the claymore is just as good as the Katana  but if you look at the skills of the warriors the samurai was the best.  The  Spartan was a tank but tanks are slow and if you stay outside it’s range like with a bow you can kill a heavily armored Spartan.

 

I would also add in the Zande Warrior, Vlad the Impaler with Kilij, Comanches, Gurkhas, Shining Armor with the  Royal Guards, and nightmare moon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 21, 2013 by swordsman

[Sky Warden 2,243]

 

 

Some legendary abilities purported to be in the province of ninja training include invisibility, walking on water, and control over the natural elements.

You sure have never heard about Qigong before. Still, manipulating natural elements is indeed too much.

 

 

 

They just kept working on their weapons, skill and armored to get the best they could have. Also you have to remember samurai were just as good with their bows as they were with their swords and bowman were used against gunman longer then swords were. Yeah the claymore is just as good as the Katana but if you look at the skills of the warriors the samurai was the best. The Spartan was a tank but tanks are slow and if you stay outside it’s range like with a bow you can kill a heavily armored Spartan.

 

 

You may want to read this:

 

---

 

How powerful was a long bow?

One story told in medieval times was that an arrow fired from a long bow could penetrate four inches into oak. Recent tests have shown that this anecdote is true when the arrow is fired close up. From 200 metres, a longbow arrow penetrated over one inch of solid oak – more than sufficient power to penetrate the armour worn by soldiers. Plate armour gave more protection but could still be penetrated from 100 metres. The maximum range of a long bow was 400 metres but at this distance, it was far less effective.

Also :

The Mongol bow is not as large and long as the English one, but it is vastly more powerful. The draw weight of an English longbow averages around 70-80 pounds, whereas the Old Mongol bow had a pull that, according to George Vernadsky, averaged at around 166 pounds. Chambers states that the pull varied from 100 to 160 pounds. This seeming discrepancy certainly reflects the fact that draw weight varied with the strength of the user, and with what use the bow had been made for. As could be expected, there was a considerable difference in shooting range. Whereas the English longbow could shoot at distances up to 250 yards or around 228 meters, the Mongol counterpart can hit its target at 350 yards or 320 meters and, if the archer is well trained for the task, even beyond that.

 

---

 

Japanese bow's (Yumi means 'bow' in Japanese) draw weight was just around 30lb, so far below the English long bow. The English long bow was designed to take down heavy armoured enemies, while in its era, the Yumi was used against light armoured enemies.  , From that we can see how Yumi is no match against the Mongolian composite bow. Also, the Yumi was made for horseback archery, which range is pretty close. The Yumi isn't that great, neither is Samurai.

 

Just see the material. Mongolian composite bow was made of horn and sinew.

 

English long bow is often said as the best (long) bow ever made in human history, which is nearly correct, but the Mongol is always underrated.

 

Speaking of Samurai against Spartan hoplite, it merely relies on the strategy. Samurai will win against the Spartan, if they can break the shield wall (which will kill many Samurai in the process) or simply flank them. Once they can engage the Spartan in formation-less battle, they will win.

 

About Katana, it's often overrated.

[Adente 1,000]

Although the Mongol Horde wasn't exactly 'Ancient', when compared with Rome, coming a whole thousand years after the Roman Legions vanished from Europe (Unless you count the Byzantine Empire, which was more a cavalry/navy based empire, never relying on Legions or other infantry to win wars) I pick the Legions. Superior logistics, leadership, discipline, training, and equipment would prevail over Mongol speed, range, and esprit de corps. This goes doubly so if we are refering to the Legions of the early Empire, who had already clashed with an army of Parthian Horse Archers who were very similar to the Mongols at the Battle of Carrhae. Since the Romans were famous for learning from and adapting to prevent repeated defeats, the Roman Legions post-Carrhae would be more than capable of smashing the Mongol Horde.

[Silver fox 117 49]

The poll is still broken and I can't clear it because I'm not a special member. Which kind of sucks, but I would love it if you can vote on your comment. For example +Mongol or something like that. Right now its tied so I can't move on in the tourney so please do that, and you can't vote on the website link which sucks too.

[~Rogue~ 193]

...While you guys are talking about awesome war stuff and tactics of armies I just bet on what I think is coolest.

 

It's gonna be a draw between Samurai and ninjas.....

[Silver fox 117 49]

You pro Mongols are losing this, remember to put your vote in your comment so I can count them. Good night, this match will be over tomorrow after I get back from school.

[RWB 229]

+Mongol.

 

Yeah, this is a terrible mismatch, as said earlier. People are going with centurions purely because they think they are cooler than the Mangudai.

[Sky Warden 2,243]

Although the Mongol Horde wasn't exactly 'Ancient', when compared with Rome, coming a whole thousand years after the Roman Legions vanished from Europe (Unless you count the Byzantine Empire, which was more a cavalry/navy based empire, never relying on Legions or other infantry to win wars) I pick the Legions. Superior logistics, leadership, discipline, training, and equipment would prevail over Mongol speed, range, and esprit de corps. This goes doubly so if we are refering to the Legions of the early Empire, who had already clashed with an army of Parthian Horse Archers who were very similar to the Mongols at the Battle of Carrhae. Since the Romans were famous for learning from and adapting to prevent repeated defeats, the Roman Legions post-Carrhae would be more than capable of smashing the Mongol Horde.

 

 

Dude, we're talking about Roman Legionaries here, not Roman army. That means it's just infantry, footmen, without any single pony in the Roman side. Even though they had more civilized way to live and had learned from the battle of Carrhae (which was caused by cavalry archer), they still can't catch horses.

 

HUMAN LEGS RACING AGAINST HORSES.

 

Just with that, even the simplest logic can see who will win. The Legionaries have no raged weapon other than their pillum, and they usually just bring three per unit. The shooting range is short as well. How can you kill a group of cavalry archer who's far from you while being showered by arrows? How can you catch them?

 

Remember that the quantity of both armies is equal, so please don't say anything about tactical movement to surround the Mongolian Mangudai.

 

For more info, here's how the battle will go.

 

Just say, the battle (same numbers and regular battle field) may go like this. Both forces march. The Mangudai starts raining the Centurion with arrow, just to initiate their attack. Maybe just two or three stream. The Centurion, in their best sense, will use the Testudo formation to protect themselves against the arrows, which is very reasonable. While the Centurion is immobile (actually they still can move, but imagine how difficult it is to move in such formation) the Mangudai surrounds the Testudo formation. They continue shooting their arrows from any direction. Quick note : they can't throw their pillum during the Testudo. As far as I know, the Testudo has a hole on the back of the formation, so that may be a good target. Some Centurion will fall, but they still can keep their formation if they're good enough. They won't break their Testudo to charge the Mangudai. Too risky. When finally the Testudo goes weak, because of the fallen Centurions or just panic, the Mangudai will charge them. The Centurion is very vulnerable to cavalry charges while in the Testudo. Don't say that Mangudai is only good at archery. They also have decent melee weapons and charging skill. End of battle.

 

The Roman Empire didn't fall for no reason. The Hun, the Parthian. I've posted several times to show how Centurion can't defeat Mangudai. Here are the post:

 

http://mlpforums.com/topic/60604-who-is-the-best-ancient-warrior/?p=1475346

http://mlpforums.com/topic/60604-who-is-the-best-ancient-warrior/?p=1475430

http://mlpforums.com/topic/60604-who-is-the-best-ancient-warrior/?p=1483943

http://mlpforums.com/topic/60604-who-is-the-best-ancient-warrior/?p=1480703

 

 

+Mongol.

 

Yeah, this is a terrible mismatch, as said earlier. People are going with centurions purely because they think they are cooler than the Mangudai.

Like this good sir said, it's because Centurion sounds cooler than Mongolian Mangudai.

 

+MONGOLIAN MANGUDAI

 

 

You pro Mongols are losing this, remember to put your vote in your comment so I can count them. Good night, this match will be over tomorrow after I get back from school.

 

LOL! This is because this competition is merely decided with vote, not debate or discussion.

 

Also, please avoid saying that Samurai or Ninja is the best warrior ever without giving the reasons. They're often overrated.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Sky Warden

[Starshine 16,330]

+1 vote on Mongol :3

 

Centurions might be fancy and romantic looking, but they can't really do anything against the Mangudai. You will need much more than some glorified foot soldiers to kill the cavalry archers that once played great parts to conquer the 25% of the humanity.

[RichardIII 37]

This might be my last post, as I had revealed in some topic that my age is eleven.

 

I would say that the Celtic warriors and the roman centurions are the best, although they are enemies.

[Adente 1,000]

 

 

 

 

Dude, we're talking about Roman Legionaries here, not Roman army. That means it's just infantry, footmen, without any single pony in the Roman side. Even though they had more civilized way to live and had learned from the battle of Carrhae (which was caused by cavalry archer), they still can't catch horses.

 

HUMAN LEGS RACING AGAINST HORSES.

 

Just with that, even the simplest logic can see who will win. The Legionaries have no raged weapon other than their pillum, and they usually just bring three per unit. The shooting range is short as well. How can you kill a group of cavalry archer who's far from you while being showered by arrows? How can you catch them?

 

Remember that the quantity of both armies is equal, so please don't say anything about tactical movement to surround the Mongolian Mangudai.

 

For more info, here's how the battle will go.

 

 

The Roman Empire didn't fall for no reason. The Hun, the Parthian. I've posted several times to show how Centurion can't defeat Mangudai. Here are the post:

 

http://mlpforums.com/topic/60604-who-is-the-best-ancient-warrior/?p=1475346

http://mlpforums.com/topic/60604-who-is-the-best-ancient-warrior/?p=1475430

http://mlpforums.com/topic/60604-who-is-the-best-ancient-warrior/?p=1483943

http://mlpforums.com/topic/60604-who-is-the-best-ancient-warrior/?p=1480703

 

 

Like this good sir said, it's because Centurion sounds cooler than Mongolian Mangudai.

 

+MONGOLIAN MANGUDAI

 

 

 

LOL! This is because this competition is merely decided with vote, not debate or discussion.

 

Also, please avoid saying that Samurai or Ninja is the best warrior ever without giving the reasons. They're often overrated.

 

 

Well, you have a good point, but there was never anything in the rules that said the Romans had to CATCH the Mongolians. If the Romans were facing a mounted, mobile enemy like the Mongols, they would dig in and fortify a crucial area, likely a choke point the Mongols would have to cross, like one of the few passes through the Alps. Since the Romans dug field fortifications every night on the march, this wouldn't be a challenge for them. The entrenched Roman force would disrupt the Mongol's cavalry, since it would need to cross over trenches, ditches, spikes, and other impediments that would break up the ground around the Romans. Obviously the Mongols excelled on open battlefields, since their life on the open steppes was all about wide open land, but in a closed battle where they couldn't move quickly or retreat quickly they would be defeated in close quarters combat, which the Romans excelled at. A gladius against a mounted archer will never turn out well for the archer.  

 

Since the Mongols were infamous for their aggression in battle, I believe they wouldn't try and bypass a fortified Roman legion, and would rather attack it head on, since in most battles their enemies broke and ran before first contact even occurred, allowing the Mongols to chase down and slaughter them. However, given the Roman's refusal to break and run even in the worst of situations, (I'll use The Battle of Teutoburg Wald as an example; the Romans fought to the last man, and didn't try and retreat) the shock force of the Mongols wouldn't faze them enough to make them abandon a fortified position. However, I do agree that if the two forces met in a set-piece battle on an open area, the Mongols would decimate any Roman force, hands down. I also believe, however, that any Roman General worth his salt would never meet a superior mobility army in terrain of their choosing or favoring. He would employ asymmetric warfare to even the playing ground, bring the fight into CCQ, where the Romans were unbeatable. 

Edited May 22, 2013 by Windy Runner

[RWB 229]

Well, you have a good point, but there was never anything in the rules that said the Romans had to CATCH the Mongolians. If the Romans were facing a mounted, mobile enemy like the Mongols, they would dig in and fortify a crucial area, likely a choke point the Mongols would have to cross, like one of the few passes through the Alps. Since the Romans dug field fortifications every night on the march, this wouldn't be a challenge for them. The entrenched Roman force would disrupt the Mongol's cavalry, since it would need to cross over trenches, ditches, spikes, and other impediments that would break up the ground around the Romans. Obviously the Mongols excelled on open battlefields, since their life on the open steppes was all about wide open land, but in a closed battle where they couldn't move quickly or retreat quickly they would be defeated in close quarters combat, which the Romans excelled at. A gladius against a mounted archer will never turn out well for the archer.  

 

You are forgetting the part where the Mongols excelled in horseless combat in tough terrain, and that they marched over mountains. Mountainous terrains is gonna **** the centurions over even more... watch the Mongols climb the mountains, then raining down arrows and even a few explosives.

 

There's also the slight issue of shield durability. Thicker and more durable shields have broken under less powerful bows, and the mongols had special arrows for breaking defenses(heavy arrows).

 

 

Since the Mongols were infamous for their aggression in battle, I believe they wouldn't try and bypass a fortified Roman legion, and would rather attack it head on, since in most battles their enemies broke and ran before first contact even occurred, allowing the Mongols to chase down and slaughter them. However, given the Roman's refusal to break and run even in the worst of situations, (I'll use The Battle of Teutoburg Wald as an example; the Romans fought to the last man, and didn't try and retreat) the shock force of the Mongols wouldn't faze them enough to make them abandon a fortified position. However, I do agree that if the two forces met in a set-piece battle on an open area, the Mongols would decimate any Roman force, hands down. I also believe, however, that any Roman General worth his salt would never meet a superior mobility army in terrain of their choosing or favoring. He would employ asymmetric warfare to even the playing ground, bring the fight into CCQ, where the Romans were unbeatable. 

 

Mongols have Subedei:

 

Subutai (Mongolian: Сүбээдэй, Sübeedei; Classic Mongolian: Sübügätäi or Sübü'ätäi; Tsubodai 1175–1248) was the primary military strategist and general of Genghis Khan and Ögedei Khan. He directed more than twenty campaigns in which he conquered thirty-two nations and won sixty-five pitched battles, during which he conquered or overran more territory than any other commander in history. He gained victory by means of imaginative and sophisticated strategies and routinely coordinated movements of armies that were hundreds of kilometers away from each other. He is also remembered for devising the campaign that destroyed the armies of Hungary and Poland within two days of each other, by forces over five hundred kilometers apart.

 

There's no roman general that even comes close.

 

Also, the mongols could just capture whatever towns the romans are forced to forfeit just to choose their ground, and then use the roman citizens as a meat wall while whittling away at them from range.

 

 

Essentially, the centurions are still disadvantaged even in their best possible terrain. The mongols are just too advanced for them.

[Adente 1,000]

Essentially, the centurions are still disadvantaged even in their best possible terrain. The mongols are just too advanced for them.

 

Actually, there are several Roman Generals I believe exceed or at least match Subutai. Although Subutai was a genius general, innovative on the battlefield, and a great leader for his soldiers, so were Caesar, Pompey, Scipio Africanus, Trajan, Constantine... I could go on. Point is, the Romans did have commanders to match Subutai for tactical genius. 

 

As for the bit about the Mongols being superior dismounted in mountainous terrain to the legions, the Romans fought very effectively in the mountainous regions of Dacia, Macedonia, and the Alps/southern Gaul. Your point about the human shield is very true, and the Mongols would have an edge because of that, but not a decisive one. The Romans proved they could survive murderous rains of arrows in their conflicts with the Scythian Horse Archers of the plains. And as for the mention of the Romans lacking the ranged weapons needed to hit the Mongols at range, the Romans were the greatest innovators of artillery in history. Their trebuchets and scorpios were unmatched for centuries, and remained competitive pieces until the advent of gunpowder. 

 

You certainly made several good points that swayed my argument, but I believe that if equal numbers of Roman Legionaries and Mongolian Manghit met in battle, the result would either be inconclusive or a narrow Roman victory.

[Sky Warden 2,243]

Actually, there are several Roman Generals I believe exceed or at least match Subutai. Although Subutai was a genius general, innovative on the battlefield, and a great leader for his soldiers, so were Caesar, Pompey, Scipio Africanus, Trajan, Constantine... I could go on. Point is, the Romans did have commanders to match Subutai for tactical genius. 

 

As for the bit about the Mongols being superior dismounted in mountainous terrain to the legions, the Romans fought very effectively in the mountainous regions of Dacia, Macedonia, and the Alps/southern Gaul. Your point about the human shield is very true, and the Mongols would have an edge because of that, but not a decisive one. The Romans proved they could survive murderous rains of arrows in their conflicts with the Scythian Horse Archers of the plains. And as for the mention of the Romans lacking the ranged weapons needed to hit the Mongols at range, the Romans were the greatest innovators of artillery in history. Their trebuchets and scorpios were unmatched for centuries, and remained competitive pieces until the advent of gunpowder. 

 

You certainly made several good points that swayed my argument, but I believe that if equal numbers of Roman Legionaries and Mongolian Manghit met in battle, the result would either be inconclusive or a narrow Roman victory.

 

@@RWB, has summed enough things to get the conclusion.

 

The Mongol is indeed underrated. How did you think they capture all of those land before they got Chinese and Turkish engineers to support them in siege?

 

You also forget about the strength of Mongolian bow. It's much stronger than English long bow which could penetrate metal plate armour. See my previous post.

 

 

 

The Romans proved they could survive murderous rains of arrows in their conflicts with the Scythian Horse Archers of the plains.

 

Tell me more. The Romans were crushed into pieces in the battle of Carrhae. Also, Scythian bow was much weaker than Mongolian composite bow. I also bet that those conditions where the Roman survived the rains of arrows were supported with Roman cavalry, or walls.

 

 

And as for the mention of the Romans lacking the ranged weapons needed to hit the Mongols at range, the Romans were the greatest innovators of artillery in history. Their trebuchets and scorpios were unmatched for centuries, and remained competitive pieces until the advent of gunpowder.

 

The siege of Xiangyang. What the Mongol used was one of the biggest and deadliest trebuchets ever made. Also, this is Centurion against Mangudai, not Roman army. That means no siege equipment either.

 

 

Actually, there are several Roman Generals I believe exceed or at least match Subutai. Although Subutai was a genius general, innovative on the battlefield, and a great leader for his soldiers, so were Caesar, Pompey, Scipio Africanus, Trajan, Constantine... I could go on. Point is, the Romans did have commanders to match Subutai for tactical genius.

 

Subedei (Subutai) took more land than those generals you mentioned. The Roman generals were famous because their people made them songs to remember their battles. They might win some battles with genius tactics, but only some battles, not more than that. Not an empire. Who wrote a song for Subedei or Genghis? Their bravery were only sung by their army around the camp fire. That's why they had less fame than the Romans. Also who burnt the Tanguts (the Xi Xia Empire) into ashes?

Edited May 23, 2013 by Sky Warden

[Adente 1,000]

@@RWB, has summed enough things to get the conclusion.

 

The Mongol is indeed underrated. How did you think they capture all of those land before they got Chinese and Turkish engineers to support them in siege?

 

You also forget about the strength of Mongolian bow. It's much stronger than English long bow which could penetrate metal plate armour. See my previous post.

 

 

 

 

Tell me more. The Romans were crushed into pieces in the battle of Carrhae. Also, Scythian bow was much weaker than Mongolian composite bow. I also bet that those conditions where the Roman survived the rains of arrows were supported with Roman cavalry, or walls.

 

 

 

The siege of Xiangyang. What the Mongol used was one of the biggest and deadliest trebuchets ever made. Also, this is Centurion against Mangudai, not Roman army. That means no siege equipment either.

 

 

 

Subedei (Subutai) took more land than those generals you mentioned. The Roman generals were famous because their people made them songs to remember their battles. They might win some battles with genius tactics, but only some battles, not more than that. Not an empire. Who wrote a song for Subedei or Genghis? Their bravery were only sung by their army around the camp fire. That's why they had less fame than the Romans. Also who burnt the Tanguts (the Xi Xia Empire) into ashes?

 

Although the Mongol Empire was vast, most of it was very sparsely populated, save for China and the Middle East. This isn't to undercut the conquests of the Mongols, they were indeed quite impressive, being four times the size of the Roman Empire. However, it comes back to the value of the land. Unlike the densely populated Mediterranean lands the Romans dominated, much of the land of the Mongol Empire was worthless for anything besides grazing for horses and empty space for the Silk Roads trade routes to pass through. So therefore the argument that 'The Mongols were better because they conquered more land' is a fallacy.

 

Not to mention the Mongols deliberately set out on wars of conquest, no Roman general ever conquered nearly as much land, simply because they never intended or desired to; all Roman wars were, at least in the minds of the Romans, either defensive or preemptive, never purely aggressive for aggression's sake. So again, the argument that Mongolian commanders were superior because they conquered more land is incorrect.

 

Don't forget that with the exception of China, most of Mongolia's victims were not united or militaristic civilizations, they were disparate city-states built on trade, not warfare, and so weren't prepared for war, especially on the scale the Mongols fought. The Romans, on the other hand, were surrounded by militarized societies and civilizations, and so their conquest is far more impressive, despite taking longer and occupying a smaller area. The Mongols were lucky, they entered the world stage during a power vaccum when all the powers (China, the Islamic Caliphates, Russia, etc) were either in decline or exhausted from war, and unprepared for an invasion. This is evidenced by the longevity of the Roman Empire vs. the Mongol Empire. The Roman Empire endured for more than a millennium, (two if you count Byzantium) whereas the Mongols barely lasted a century. This proves their army was unsuccessful in subjugating the conquered territories as efficiently and successively as the Romans.

 

I guess in conclusion, since I got a little off topic just then, I simply can't comprehend a battle where Roman Legions would go into battle without the support of their Auxiliaries, artillery and cavalry, so this is a battle that never would happen. So therefore, I will give victory to the Mongol cavalry in a battle with Roman Infantry ONLY. However, this is a battle that couldn't ever happen, since the Romans would never enter such a stacked battle. In a battle where the Romans could use all of their support units, they would decimate the Mongols.

[Sky Warden 2,243]

@, do you know the Yuan Dynasty? That's Mongol. Ruled by Kubhilai Khan. The wealth of the Dynasty was more intense than Romans. I guess you only see the Mongol as the nomad horde, not all the Empire.

 

If you want to talk about Roman cavalry, their horses were slower than the Mongol's, so is the riders. They will die in their attempt to chase the Mangudai. The Mongols were not stupid. Don't expect to make them fall into your trap that easily.

 

Auxiliaries? Roman's archery wasn't that great. How are you supposed to hit fast-moving cavalry with artillery? Maybe scorpions can, but seriously.

 

The only sane ways to defeat Mongolian Mangudai with military power are outnumbering them and surround them or showering them with arrows. Outnumbering them is insane. Showering them with arrows is difficult as well. Bow quality and such. Unless your army is full of British longbow men in a high towers or walls, it's hard to defeat them in archery. Korean Hwarang in mountainous battle may win as well, even though the chance is still unstable.

 

The Mongol invasion was mainly stopped because of two things. One, the death of their leader. Two, because of the ecology. The earth was just too poor for them. The earth wasn't capable of supporting their army. Their army were too expensive for the earth.

[Adente 1,000]

@@Sky Warden,

 

Yes, the Yuan were of Mongolian origin. However, I don't consider them 'Mongol' per sea, but rather a hybrid Chinese/Mongolian Dynasty. In fact, the Mongols may have conquered China militarily, but China conquered the Mongolians culturally, much in the same way as when Rome conquered Greece. The Mongolians emulated and copied Chinese hierarchy, and the only change they brought to China was the elimination of the Scholar-gentry class, giving the merchants more political influence. This reverted back when the Ming Dynasty threw out the Mongols. I think of the Yuan Dynasty as separate from the Mongol Empire proper, which I view in three phases.

1. The original empire under Genghis Khan.
2. The divide Khanate of Genghis's children
3. The Khanate of Tamerlane.

The Yuan dynasty is kind of its own entity, since the Mongols who ruled the Yuan Dynasty lost touch with their nomadic roots and thought of themselves as Chinese.

 

As for the bit on Roman Cavalry, unless we are talking about the late empire, when the Roman Army was an unabridged disaster anyways, the cavalry were used only for skirmishing and harassing purposes. They would ride out and meet the Mongol's initial charge to disrupt it and break its momentum before breaking off contact. The Romans didn't fight to destroy the enemy, they fought to outlast them. (Refer to the Second Punic War. Hannibal won the battles, lost the war) Due to the foraging nature of the Mongolian armies, they couldn't sustain a prolonged campaign of attrition in Roman territory. Their horses weren't suited for the environment and would die, and the Mongols themselves would weaken from lack of supplies. Then the Romans would strike. This topographical disadvantage, along with the death of Ögedei as you mentioned, contributed to the Mongol's failure to take Europe. 

 

And as a side note, what stopped the Mongols was the brave stand of the Mamluks at Ain Jalut, breaking the Mongol advance once and for all. That, and the gradual recovery of the states such as Russia and China that had been brutalized in the Mongol's initial conquest, which allowed them to throw the hated overlords out once and for all.

[Sky Warden 2,243]

 

 

And as a side note, what stopped the Mongols was the brave stand of the Mamluks at Ain Jalut, breaking the Mongol advance once and for all.

 

That's because the earth couldn't support them, not because their cavalry is stronger. That's why. The Mamluks were superior in the desert. I like the Mamluks too.

 

 

 

That, and the gradual recovery of the states such as Russia and China that had been brutalized in the Mongol's initial conquest, which allowed them to throw the hated overlords out once and for all.

 

Political issue between the heirs. Just being human and such.

 

 

 

The Yuan dynasty is kind of its own entity, since the Mongols who ruled the Yuan Dynasty lost touch with their nomadic roots and thought of themselves as Chinese.

 

Military is still military. We're talking about military here. It was Mongolian military which made them richer than the Roman. That's what I was trying to tell you. Though it's kinda sad that Kubhilai got used with Chinese culture and got fat.

 

The Mongols were terrible at politic indeed, but I want to remind you again that we're talking about warriors here. About military. About fighters, not fancy people in dresses.

 

Roman military wasn't superior. They were rich, and that was what made them (seemed) glorious. They were not so tough.

 

You can't beat Mongolian horse breed with Roman's. The riders were not as good as well. Also, again, Mongols weren't stupid in military. They won't simply charge. It still seems like their charging ability is underrated.

[Adente 1,000]

That's because the earth couldn't support them, not because their cavalry is stronger. That's why. The Mamluks were superior in the desert. I like the Mamluks too.

 

 

 

 

Political issue between the heirs. Just being human and such.

 

 

 

 

Military is still military. We're talking about military here. It was Mongolian military which made them richer than the Roman. That's what I was trying to tell you. Though it's kinda sad that Kubhilai got used with Chinese culture and got fat.

 

The Mongols were terrible at politic indeed, but I want to remind you again that we're talking about warriors here. About military. About fighters, not fancy people in dresses.

 

Roman military wasn't superior. They were rich, and that was what made them (seemed) glorious. They were not so tough.

 

You can't beat Mongolian horse breed with Roman's. The riders were not as good as well. Also, again, Mongols weren't stupid in military. They won't simply charge. It still seems like their charging ability is underrated.

 

Well, I actually believe what made the Romans seem so glorious wasn't their wealth, but their legacy. Their empire had such longevity, (relative) stability, economic prosperity, military dominance, and cultural superiority for such a long time that they have been called the ideal empire, the one that all other empires are compared to and judged by. I'm not disagreeing that the Roman legacy wasn't built on their victories on the battlefield alone, but it certainly helped. The point of them being 'not so tough' though, isn't true, at least not until the late period of the Empire when everyone got apathetic, recruited mercenaries, and invited disaster. Roman tenacity, ingenuity, and hardiness won more than one war that the Romans simply shouldn't have won from a logical standpoint. Then again, same could be said for the Mongols. 

 

So I guess we've reached an impasse. We both made good points, but I still believe that in a protracted campaign, Roman tenacity, ingenuity, and discipline would trump Mongol tactics, mobility, and range. You obviously believe the exact opposite, so no more can be accomplished by arguing. Unless, of course you want to have a regular 'ol INTERNET FIGHT!!!!!!!!

Edited May 23, 2013 by Evilshy
took out some irrelevant stuff that might've started something

[Evilshy 5,089]

I'd just like to remind everybody to stay on topic. Ancient empires and their prowess in various areas is certainly an interesting subject, but if you want to discuss it at length, I ask that you put it in its own thread.

Deleting legitimate discussion because it's too far off-topic makes me feel bad. Please don't make Evilshy feel bad

Edited May 23, 2013 by Evilshy

[Silver fox 117 49]

Calm down guys, sorry I took a break, but I'm back. I was trying to finish a very important essay. I can not let my gpa drop at all. Mongols got more votes sorry Roman fans