Download Rise of Kingdoms from my link patron.me/MetatronRoK today and immortalize your journey! Be sure to check out the link above where you can be 1 of 1000 people to get a $20 gift card to AR500! Redeem code: ConquerROK in-game!
Take the second Punic war. Hannibal at the doors burning fields. "I am ready for your surrender". Roman: "So it is war!" The leaders would want blood. Hannibal was not one to massacre civilians either. So having savages kill civilians, I think they would just go mad. Raise army after army.
@@ODDnanref totally agree. I'm a fan of carthaginian history. And I believe a few armies under hannibal would also extinguish the Mongols.. He might need scipio by his side to actually take the mongol stronghold though
@@comradecam9530 Offa's Dike would like to have a word with you. It was an earthwork built in Anglo-Saxon time to separate the English Kingdoms and the Welsh Kingdoms. Yes, there were multiple little kingdoms in each land at the time.
@@mattfromwiisports2468 but the romans also did this, every time they face a new enemy technologie that seems helpfull, they adapt it, upgrade it, and mass produce it...
Bshhh mongols move faster then you think dude by the time ceaser finish building his trench the mongols already took all of Italy lol while majorty of Roman troops work on trenches the mongols would just hire Anglo saxons and other barbarians to distory it haha this guy M U thinking a long trench would stop a massive horse army you have to be kidding me😝😝😝
Mongol Commanders: *uses mass killings of civilians as psychological trauma tactic* Roman Generals: “Just another beautiful day in the neighborhood...”
I think such empire would just be the Byzantine empire on steroids, so most likely the equipment would be similar to byzantine. Late Roman army was similar in both west and east.
I foresee a Medieval Latin Roman army being essentially a historical Medieval Roman army but with more germanic influence both in its ethnic make-up and its aesthetics, possibly also including a measure of germanic common law mixed into the legal systems.
The biggest problem of beating Mongols/Tatars that everyone seems to miss is that you first have to force them to accept a battle. Which they don't have to do at all, having operational superiority coming from their mobility. This very problem occurred in real history. Once Poland and Muscovy started to be more proficient with beating Mongols, they would simply refuse regular battles with the exception of conditions that were very favorable to them. Otherwise, they would rely on raids and hit and run tactics that would result in a destroyed economy, depopulation, and exhausted, underpaid, and demoralized armies. Whole generations of Polish and Russian commanders were figuring out tactics and strategies to overcome this problem.
This is where logistics come in. How fast can you move your troops? Can you chase after your enemy so that he can't rest, or is it you who can't rest? This is where the Roman Castel and highway system comes in. By highway, I mean roads and rivers, where messengers can travel fast and e.g. change horses, or pass on messages to new riders.
B-but when you engage their army they can only retreat one time in a totally random direction and then they get stuck in a magic square which neither side can leave before the other is destroyed in its entirety! Trust me I played Rome 2
Because we assume that the frame is mongols invading the roman empire, not romans marching in the steppe for thousand of miles in the hope of conquering kharakhorum. They had enough after Marcus Crassus for sure.
@@edi9892 In the case of a Tatar army that went on a raid chasing them was usually regarded as the worst approach. Firstly because it was hard to predict where they would attack in the first place, even if you had prepared outposts and patrols information about the attack took some time to reach the army. In the meantime, Tatars would often be either long gone or already deep in your territory wreaking havoc. "By highway, I mean roads and rivers, where messengers can travel fast and e.g. change horses, or pass on messages to new riders." ---Since Mongols would usually attack during winter which meant crossing rivers was easy for them, while using rivers for messengers was impossible. Mongols also had an advantage in the form of step horses that could easily feed during winter while European horses need to be supplied with grain. The easiest way to catch them was to either wait until they loot a lot and feel safer and decide to make a camp, then attack the camp. If you managed to remain undetected for long enough. Since slaves and loot where their primary motives, Tatars would usually try to defend their camp since all that additional baggage meant it was impossible for them to escape quickly enough. Another way was to wait till Tatar army was done with looting and was going back to the steps. When they were weighed down by loot, Tatars weren't able to cross rivers so easily thus were forced to use bigger, and thus well-known river crossing which allowed to plan ahead, and block the passage with your army in order to force them to accept battle. Both these strategies were very costly and still weren't working 100% of the time.
@@ilmaio And what would stop the Mongols from making the base of operations in Cental-Eastern Europe and launch a series of raids into the Roman territory? You know, to loot and take slaves while the devastating Roman economy in the process. Then, only launch final invasion once Rome is weakened or force them to pay tribute like Huns did?
Ordinary soldier: Shit, if we lose against the Mongols, they're going to kill us all. Roman _miles:_ If they get through us, they're going to kill everyone! Hold the line!
Well, medieval armies didn't entirely fail at stopping the Mongols. After all, medieval feudal armies finally started repelling their raids and eventually started to process of overthrowing Tatar/Mongol states.
The mongols could not take atrishon, so when the europian had gotten to know them they no longer surrendered but instead fough to the end, causing unsasteinable losses to the mongols. Also the mongols could not hold land, the entirety of their advantages dissapear if they are besieged in fortifications or trie to hold their grownd agaist a direct assault.
@@johnrockwell5834 The Song dynasty of China was advanced in poetry and paintings which were and will always be useless in battles, that's why they got their sorry ass handed to them by the illiterate but militarily advanced Mongols.
@Walker Texas Wanker What BS is that?! Did you forget how those dynasties were formed? That's right by hundreds of years of internal WAR. You think they didn't have armies? Dear god our educational system really is screwed
@ Watch the battle in King and generals channel, they landed and didn't got further than the beachs, most of the troops were Chinese and Korean tho, a Mongol soldier would be useless invading Japan coasts anyway
@ We don't know for sure how many ships had flaws in them. However, even without flaws, storms would be very dangerous to ships. The Romans lost their entire fleet to a storm off of the coast of Sicily during the First Punic War, and the storms in the Mediterranean are far calmer than a typhoon in the Pacific.
Thunder Dogs that’s funny.. mongols literally rode around city walls until the people starve to death. They also stole and obtained really advance siege weapons.
I'd say the Roman probably pay the Mongol to leave. The Mongol would depart while dragging a few engineers their way and send trade, assuming no messenger was killed. If the Mongol came back, they'd came with Roman siege corp on horseback. The mongol themselves was an empire. The Roman was great but they'd have had a huge wake up call. Had they fought the Mongol, they'd probably have fired their German and hired the Mongol for the positions. They both have that kinda adaptability in them.
I don't think that the mongols would have enough compensation to fight the romans. Just as they did later in medieval times, if it wasn't a good fight they would just not take it. I particularly think that the mongolians could "grind" the roman provinces slowly, by hitting and running, but it would cost them heavily. It would be bad for both of them, and that's why I think the mongols would happily accept payment to leave.
They might've probably said "Hey, how about we give you 100 box of Gold for your Khan and you sent 100 of your best Horse Bois so you can train our troops to fight like your Horse Bois, also i want those explosive thinggy you use as a weapon, those shit lit yo" With regards -GENERAL SCVTVM GLADIVS.
Mongol would crush roman don't get why this is even debatable ......mogol had acces to Chinese gunpowder and other advance weapons for that time ...Romans did NOT
It's strange that when discussing commanders, you seem to imply that this factor would give the Romans more chances. You mention Scipio Africanus compared to Hungarian King, but you don't mention Subotai. That guy was arguably one of the top 5 generals in world history. And in most cases, while there have been bad Roman commanders who were chosen due to their noble heritage and financial power, Genghis Khan was particularly known for his meritocratic policy, which was the main reason behind his incredible success. He would recruit the best of the best among different, even hostile tribes, regardless of noble lineage, and such were the cases of Subotai and Jebe, two of his best commanders. Additionally, most known battles where the mongols were involved, they seem to have the strategic and tactical advantage so I'd say that the commander factor weighs much more towards the Mongols than the Romans.
While I definitely agree that Mongolian generals were extremely skilled, Scipio is just undeniably one of the best of all time and I think Rome just had a lot of generals throughout history that had to take on other legendary generals and win. In this case beating Hannibal Barca is obviously a pretty good achievement and the diversity of enemies that the Romans fought probably meant they were more prepared than the mongols
I think his point was that Hungary and other nations directly involved didn't have as good of commanders as the Romans on average. He's not discounting the Mongol commanders (who were usually very skilled). When discussing advantage he means Rome would have the advantage over medieval commanders when facing the Mongols. At least thats what I got from it.
@Clown World 2020 what?? Actually Rome fought Sassanids and Parthians trading equally... And those peoples didn't achieve nothing but killing some Romans. Rome wasn't really threatened, and when this happened Odenathus destroyed them. On the other hand, the Romans took Ctesiphon and as far as the sea. This romantic idea of cavalry archers going pew pew on the Romans isn't something really historically relevant, in my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong. Additionally, we should put into context the victories and the defeats of each side. Then we realize how political stability is the key in this confrontation
There's a saying in boxing, that "You can only look as good as the other guy in the ring allows you to". In other words, a General can only be "Top 5", if other Generals allowed themselves to be conquered by him.
In a favorable terrain with a lot of room for maneuver, Mongols vs Roman would be like the battle of Carrhae. The Roman legionaries could take cover with their scutum shield, but there were legionaries wounded by the arrows all the time. And, whenever the legionaries tries to close in or the auxiliary archers brought in, the horse archer simply just take off and attack another part of the army (this was the case in Carrhae). But with Mongols things will be much more worse. One thing nobody mentions is the independence of each sub-commander. Mongol army can operate on several army group, as seen in Russian campaign or the campaign in China, with each group herding the enemies to a certain killing field. In modern military term, the Mongol perform a "Deep Battle". The Mongols are not only attacking the army, but with their highly mobile and independent commander also disturb any kind of supply or information flow. Put the enemy in a state which they can only react and not making initiative. I've read too many books on Mongols military. Soooo yeah, I might be biased. But, if Subotai were given order and full support by the Khan to invade Rome. There will be soo much trouble for Rome. One they might not be able to handle nor recover from.
I think the many battles and wars between the Romans and first the Parthians and later on the Sassanids can provide a good case study of how the Romans faired against cavalry-focused armies (especially horse archers). The first engagement would most probably have gone to the opponent due to the sheer tactical flexibility and speed of the horse archers. However, the Roman response usually comes swiftly and with the tools suited to the problem: when the Parthians won in Carrahe and later pressed into Syria, they were eventually turned back when they were faced with concentrated slingers and archers (I can't remember well, but I think it was under Cassius who took over from Crassus). With the Sassanids at Darra, the Romans were expecting the attack and the kind of army that's facing them, and so they dug fortifications all over the place to counter the possible uses of the cavalry. Speaking of fortifications, it's probably one of the best weapons in the Romans toolbox. Although engineering in Medieval times has progressed much further than antiquity, the Romans had the advantage of standardisation and logistical uniformity. That meant that in the middle of a completely plain area, a Roman legion can pluck in a fortress almost overnight. Having a secure base for your army can open up a number of new options against an enemy who may not be as adaptive (if the wars of Caesar do not convince you of how well and easily the legions could set up camps and fortifications, I don't know what would).
At Carrhae, Crassus had not followed the advice of general Gaius Cassius Longinus regarding the deployment of troops, which is probably the main reason for its defeat, the legions having been because of his bad choice found surrounded by an enemy with an uninterrupted shooting capacity. A tactic of hit and run in rolling fire, in the middle of a plain with no other form of cover than their shields that, it seems, the Parthian arrows were able to partially pierce. In any case the legions found themselves unable to maneuver, despite an attempt to break the encirclement, which turned out to be completely unsuccessful because the Parthians had obviously foreseen it. If we put this in parallel with the battle of Teutoburg, we can attest that ambushes are really the bane of the Roman army.
Finally someone that doesn't give the edge to the Mongols just because of the horse archers and knows enough about Roman history to focus not entirely on the battle of carrahe
The war between Parthians and Romans ended in draw, the legions could not build fortification when on the move or during a battle, and any formation they implement on the field the Parthian horse archers could have flank and surround them anyway, unless they head their back against the woods, river, mountain, etc, but that would leave them in a defensive position all the time. On Parthians side, they just couldn't surpass the Romans fortifications. And that lasted like this for more than 500 years until the Mongols arrived and defeated the post Parthian caliphates tactics in just 2 years. The Mongols then could have used their typical tactics with the addition of gunpowder bombs, flaming cartwheels and fire-spurting lances that they could throw into the compact legionary formations.
Magister Militum honestly, the fact that the mongols defeated more technologically sophisticated armies regularly and had commanders that could give any Roman commander a run for his money and also Mongols were highly disciplined themselves. The obvious edge goes to the Mongols. The Persians were a near peer power in the region to the romans but the mongols absolutely annihilated a much stronger Persian state in Khwarezmid Empire.
The battle of Cyrrhestica in 38 BC was a decisive victory for the Roman general Publius Ventidius Bassus - Caesar’s muleteer - against the Pathian Crown prince (who was killed in action). Ventidius used slingers with especially large lead shot against the horse archers and cataphracts (not that mongols had those) to equally good effect. Fearing Antony’s jealousy Ventidius didn’t follow up - other than to destroy the remnants of the pathian army in retreat. Anthony for his part took a dozen legions into Armenia towards Parthia, but was lured into splitting his army from his baggage train and had to retreat several hundred miles in winter on the Armenian steep, harried all the way by the entire pathian army. After his initial blunder he made good his retreat by maintaining discipline, tight formations of defensive squares and timely counter attacks reminiscent of Wellington’s retreats into Portugal. Between the combined experiences of both Ventidius and Antony lies a tactical plan to seriously fuck the mongols up. Imagine a 12 legion battle group (including auxiliary horse archers, regular Calvary, Batavians, slingers etc as well as heavy infrantry) fighting on a line of retreat into its own territory, being replenished all the way, counter punching at will on ground of its own choosing. It would not end well for the mongols.
Before the Mongols even reached the Middle East and Hungary, they destroyed Chinese armies which were the most technologically advanced military at the time. They adopted Chinese siege works and conscripted their conquered as first wave "arrow catchers". Ghengis Khan had one of the most advanced spy network in the world and was able to make the Silk Road one of the safest travel routes for merchants. I think you gravely underestimate Ghengis Khan's horde.
Not to mention China is so battle hardened place they are very used for war. Warring states > Three Kingdoms > Eight Princes etc. And each generation had briliant generals and strategists. They passed their knowledge to later generations. You have figures lile Zhou Yu, Zhuge Liang or Cao Cao or Sun Tzu. Their knowledge helped to shape millitary of China. But even will all their technology and centuries of warfare they still couldnt defeat the mongols. I think people are just too biased towards fancy and popular Rome.
Hungarian army was the best the Europe could pull together in about 100s of years in that 1230s-1240s and Subotoi easily destroyed. The whole Europe were stunned and feared to death , even the French had feared , even the British was stunned ,there was nothing other than death of the Khan which saved entire Europe or it would've fallen under ogedei
@@aadithnarayanan5458 Bullshit the hungarians weren't the best army of europe and you have to consider that the germans fought the magyars (which were also horse nomads) and defeated them. Hungarys terrain was perfect for the mongol conquest because it's mostly empty steppe with little to no mountains. Maybe the mongols could have conquered the HRE (I highly doubt that) but their conquest would end at the french border because their army has to overcome thousands of castles, hills and heavy forrested regions and after that their army wouldn't be strong enough to conquer the rest of europe
In a one off battle, I'd favour the Mongols. In a prolonged war, the Romans take it. One thing that cannot be understated is the sheer resilience of the Roman state and it's cultivation of loyalty amongst the people it governed. Hannibal won crushing victory after victory vs Rome but not only did they tank those losses but also attacked his exposed flanks (Spain) whilst he was tied down in Italy. The Cimbrian war is another example, as is Shapur I's invasion during the 3rd century and the hunnic raids during the 400s. In those cases, a weakened Rome was able to reverse the enemy gains through outlasting them, whether through military force, bribery or a combination of both. This resilience would only be stronger during the era of the Principate at it's peak. Verdict: Initial Mongol successes, followed by a realisation that a full conquest is impossible. All the while, the Romans gradually learn how to more effectively counter Mongol warfare leading to reversals of Mongol gains + possible counterattack.
Hannibal nor the huns were as strong as the mongols.If the mongols had initial success,they would pick rome apart in 2years like they did to kwarezmian empire.There is no outlasting them,they are the fastest army the world had ever seen.
That's exactly what happened in Europe. The Mongols won the initial battles but when they returned they were repelled by the Hungarian and Polish armies. So Hungary and Poland won the war.
Rome all things considered did ok against the Parthians. The Parthians were conquered by the Sassanids, who posed a much larger challenge to the Romans. The Sassanids were considered by the various Islamic powers which were in turn destroyed by the Mongols in a matter of years, while Rome couldn’t even conquer a fraction of the same region in the few hundred years they found over Mesopotamia. I don’t care how fancy Roman soldiers looked, how awesome their roads are, they are an ancient power with comparatively primitive tactics and technology’s compared to the Mongols and would be utterly massacred in an all out war with the Mongols, or any Medieval empire of comparable size. Hell even a small kingdom like England could put a hell of an impressive dint in the Roman Empire and could almost certainly defend themselves from a Roman invasion. Don’t get me wrong, Rome during its height was certainly impressive for its time, but its military might has been grossly exaggerated. There was a reason why Rome reformed its military under the Byzantine empire to make use of combined arms tactics, more practical armor, and much better cavalry. The imperial Roman army as most people know it was meant to combat the peoples Rome was familiar with: the various phalanxes of the various Greek successor states, the relatively disorganized Celtic and Iberian tribes, and other classical peoples of the Mediterranean. And it did a mighty fine job at it. However as new and stronger breeds of horses were being bred in Central Asia and Persia, and as Rome came into military conflict with these people, large armies of largely homogeneous heavy infantry backed up with local auxiliaries simply couldn’t cut it any more. So Rome did what it always did and adapted changing its classical military doctrine to the more modern military doctrines of the latter Eastern Roman Empire. This adaptation didn’t happen over night, and took place over decades of continuous fighting against cultures that were comparatively primitive when compared to the Mongols. So if the classical Roman Empire at its height was to face the Mongols in an all out war it wouldn’t be fare in the slightest. I mean what could a Roman army even do against the Mongols? What are they just going to form up a nice little battle line, hold up their shields and expect the Mongols to fall upon and slaughter themselves like they’re being controlled by a total AI engine? How could they even reach the Mongols? All Mongol soldiers are mounted, their bow technology far outclass anything the Romans or any civilization had at the time, and even if the Romans could reach them they sure as shit aren’t going to do jack shit against their more advanced armor. On an open field the Roman cavalry would be cut down, their skirmishers would be outraged and outmatched and they would be surrounded. Cut off from their supplies and facing constant arrow fire they would be helpless against a heavy cavalry charges. If the Romans struggled against Parthian heavy cavalry then they’re really going to hate fighting heavy Mongol cavalry. Even if the Romans decidedly fight a defensive war, the Mongols were masters of siege warfare. If they could overcome the comparatively massive fortifications of Southern China and Persia what good are the Roman fortifications going to do? Ultimately he Romans (at their height) and the Mongols were separated by over a thousand years in which warfare and technology had drastically improved. The Spartans were great warriors, but they would still lose against the Romans for the same reason the Romans would loose against the Mongols, better technology, better mobility, more refined tactics, more flexible logistics and more man power if you factor in the Mongolian subjects in China and Persia, however even without the extra man power the results would still be the same, an overwhelming Mongol victory.
Lol rome only lived because hannibal refused to sack rome. They had no defenses. The mongols under genghis didnt care for anything but utter annihilation of their enemies. Pretty sure rome would be under heavy military stress(gallic tribes would side with the mongols after a few victories). The edges roman military has over the mongols are their engineering, heavy infantry and landscape knowledge.
One of the factors that I think many people don't appreciate is the Mongol use of gunpowder. The Mongols were among the first armies in history to make effective use of gunpowder weapons, using weapons like cannons, hand guns and grenades. Roman equipment, training and formations were meant to deal with arrows, stones and javelins. They were not meant to deal with explosives and gunpowder artillery.
To put it simply the Mongols were way more professional than the Huns and made more use of shock cavalry. A very refined and well-oiled machine compared to the prototypes that were Classical nomadic empires.
Huns were the shock cavalry for quite a few centuries after arriving to Europe. They were feared so much that just of them 70 was enough to win a battle against 30k in 535 in Northen Africa according to Procopius.
@Catch_Me_If_You_Can yeah but Romans of the Huns period were unprepared and divided and passing through diverse crises, a united and stable Roman empire could beat the Huns, and they did after all, the Mongol army as evolution of the Huns would be a fair match
I believe romans will build many forts fast and even trenches like julius caisar in his campaign in greece for example. Mongols will be in a ww1 type battle if they fight a general like julius caisar because makeshift forts and trenches will bug them down.
Russians tried this approach and failed spectacularly. The only strategy that worked sort of reliably was a mobile defense force put by Poles, consisting of standing army of professional cavalry.
Mongols had persian and chinese engineers whose catapults destroyed dirt/wooden fortifications. Read about the fall of Rus principalities for examples.
Massive walls of big metropolis in China and middle east could not stop them. I doubt a ditch with some wooden stakes and walls could. You need terrain, lots of castles and a highly mobile army to stop them. The best weapon the romans would have is their wealth to pay off and bribe individual mongol commanders
They would have already taken most of China and what is now Iran by the time they arrived on Roman territory. Those civilizations had castles that were very substantial, thus the engineers that trailed the Mongol armies. There is not really an instance where a castle withstood a determined Mongol assault until later after they had "settled" and were a familiar threat, and perhaps a lesser force.
@@whirving They did struggle at taking stone castles in their first incursion into hungary, since their catapults were much better at taking down wood and earth defenses
An important factor to consider with the Mongol Empire at its peak was that its commanders were unified under their Khan, mostly undivided by political squabbles. This meant that they would very reliably work together to achieve a common goal, something that the Romans sometimes had trouble with. In addition, the Mongols had many strategies up their sleeve, such as well-organized raiding, reliable intelligence, and a high level of proficiency in siege warfare. Romans turtling down into defensive fortifications would play right into Mongol hands, as the Mongols would simply fan out and encircle them, pillaging the land around them. Eventually any Roman commander would be forced to march into the open.
It's very difficult to imagine a war between the Romans and the Mongols but probably against a disciplined and impenetrable Roman formation the Mongols would have used Chinese gunpowder a lot. The Romans would have been terrified by that kind of weapons and their formations would have been broken more easily. The effectiveness of this tactic depends on how many weapons based on gunpowder were in the hands of the Mongol Empire at that time.
Ypu forget that the Roman's were known for adapting technology to thier own uses so while yes the first few battles would be definetly swayed by the gunpowder of the mongols I think later battles would be less affected
Thx for the mention. We were crushed back then, a significant portion of the population were wiped out (somewhere between 10-90% depending on region), but our kingdom lived on and the rebuild attempt brought many innovations, for example castle buildings, which helped a lot in our later struggles. Greetings from Hungary!
The Mongols strengthen in battle was their fast mobility, largely due to their expert horse riding and fighting (archery) from horseback. The Romans methods were different (due to time period) and their strength was their foot soldiers, their solid formations, superior training/discipline etc., to crush the enemy. Hence, in open space fighting, the mongols will ride circles around the Romans, rain arrows on the Roman formations and finally destroy them. In close quarter fighting ( in hilly terrains, dense forests etc, say, like Scottish highlands), the Roman being better armored, better trained etc), will slaughter the Mongols. BTW, other than the Japanese, the Mongols were beaten by the Vietnamese and the Javanese where the dense tropical terrain didn't allow the Mongols to maximize the efficiencies of horseback fighting warfare...
Well the Japanese didn't really beat the Mongols, the typhoons did. Plus a significant portion of the army the Mongols deployed in Japan were either Chinese or Korean troops, not their usual Turkic horse archer backbone.
@@Lucasukx Roman artillery would outrange the horse archers ? I seriously doubt that. The Central Asian Turco-Mongol composite bow had a range of over 300 meters and in the 16th century the Ottomans even improved on the design to increase range up to 500 meters but that is a different story. Assuming Roman artillery could even outrange horse archers, it is difficult to hit such a mobile force with artillery. Mongols would simply change their attack direction and loose a big volley of arrows, could the Romans rotate their artillery in time ? Doubtful. Besides the Mongols are not stupid, if they saw the Romans entrenched in a very good defensive position they would bring in their own artillery. There is a gap of at least 1000 years between Romans and Mongols, Mongols used trebuchets, gunpowder, smoke screens... anything you can think of. They were not just a horse archer force. The technological gap is simply too great to make this even a fair fight.
The Mongols defeated large coalitions of Eastern and Central European armies however these probably never exceeded 40,000 men, Rome frequently fielded armies twice that size from the Punic wars through the Severan invasion of Parthia to after Constantine and the beginning of the Later Roman Empire in the 4th century, that's over 500 years. The Mongol army that invaded Europe was no bigger than 50,000 men, even if it could defeat a Roman army twice its size it would have to do so five or six times over to defeat the whole empire while suffering losses on the way.
well subotai with an expediton of 20 000 men (same general that led the invasion of europe) in 1220s entred georgia and destroyed its field army in two battles first killing 10 000 then the rest in the second battle, after that they trougth some bribes manged to destroy an army of more than 50,000 men composed of coloation of numerous steppe tribes who decided to besige the mongol camps and let them starve subotai then payed the kipchacs to leave with this they attacked and destroyed the army and then cougth up to the kipchans and where killed, later subotai met a coloation of rus more of 80,000 and slaugthered them in the battle of the kalka river ten when he was called back the defeated more kipchacs and volga bulgarians , so the numbers add up subotai destroyed in 2 years in 5 battles so yes its possible that subotai just kills every roman army that comes at him.
@@El-Silver The chronology of the invasion and estimates of the army sizes are disputed, they were likely never more than 40,000 each and the opposition later inflated to make them look good, they were more likely equal.
@@dopeyly China was split between several states and it still took the Mongols sixty years. The largest states probably had as many troops as the Romans under Constantine however most of those were seasonal levies who lacked the training, discipline, and experience of regular forces. The Mongols were much closer to home than when invading Europe.
@@Matt_The_Hugenot Iam not refering to mohi iam referring to the expedition of 1221 of subotai and jebe that was originally sent to capture Sha muhamed
Also, a battle hardened soldier is a professional in war. The difference is not only in the mental, but in knowledge. If you ever talked to a veteran and he's told you stories about the battles he's fought in, and all the things done in preparation for waging war, all the little things done here and there, the habits, and little nuances in the way you go about conducting your everyday life, all of it is done with knowledge on survival and fighting that no one that doesn't understand the craft of war-making will ever realize.
There are a lot of factors, but given the track record of the Mongols, I'd have to give them the edge the majority of the time. I feel like terrain would be the main deciding factor, as on open fields the Romans wouldn't have a lot to negate the mobility that gave the Mongols their brutal edge, but on rockier mountain or thick forest terrain, the Mongol's horse's movement would be hindered. Overall in this case, equipment doesn't matter as much as discipline and tactics, especially since they're technologically similar despite the difference in time frames, (give a veteran a rock and make him fight a novice with a knife, odds are the veteran would still win).
Dude spinsor this ain't a total war game or a mount and blade game it's real life why do you think the mongols are bad in forest and rocky terrain the mongols are good in open field but better in forest and terrain threw out history they've been ambushing chines, minchus, japanese, Europeans, arabs, and Russian armies through our history so I dont know if you've been living under a rock or uneducated about mongol tactics but quit with the fantasy and game life about mongols being bad on mountains and forest. Also your wrong dude one rock cannot simply kill a person but hurt them but a knife on the other hand can kill a person and it ain't fear you should give the novice a bow and arrow with a shield and sword and full 15th century steel plate armor and give the pro a rock and peasant clothes now that is fear cuz you said armor dosnt matter dumbo armor was made for a reasone and it's to protect you from dying....
This is actually pretty interesting. In my upcoming historical-fantasy novel series, which is focusing on a hypothetical restoration of the Roman Empire during the 13th century, I actually am planning on the Romans allying with the Mongols, even going so far as to help in the Mongol campaigns in Persia, as well as, in a collaborative novel that my friend and I are planning, on Russia and Poland. (I say it’s historical fantasy because there is a lot of ancient mythology involved in the storyline.)
I'm a bit underwhelmed that strategic mobility/logistics wasn't a factor in this analysis. Mongols under subutai managed to coordinate battles 100s of kilometers away, split and face armies piecemeal and were basically never ambushed, the entire mongol force was the scouting party stretching for 80 kilometers until an opponent was found, Mongols would have exploited the unhappiness of the frontier vassals of rome like huns did etc, Subutai in Italy, Balkans and France would have been like Hannibal Barca all over again only terribly worse and on a huuge scale
@@stefthorman8548 yeah the same way the mongols will face, they will have shortage and the Romans will spam more armies until they genocide the mongol race
So this video is not actually about Romans vs Mongols, but more of a comparison of how the Romans would have fared, _compared to medieval Europe_ , against the Mongols. In the end I agree with your conclusion that the unified Roman Empire would have done a better job responding to the Mongol threat than the fragmented Medievals.
@@SafavidAfsharid3197 I very literally said what I think, and it had nothing to do with the song dynasty. "the unified Roman Empire would have done a better job responding to the Mongol threat than the fragmented Medievals." That's it. Do you understand that I only compared unified Rome to the fragmented medieval European kingdoms?
The Mongols had the best technology during that time. The best of everything. They would've adapted and received news on how to take down the Roman empire like they did to all the empires they encountered, they conquered them. The Roman empire at that time was also in decline because of wars with nearby empires. Almost all Historians think Western Europe was lucky it was spared because the current Khan died and after that the Mongols had inner power struggles and weren't as interested in expansion.
Not daring Julius Caesar’s time. Julius Caesar and Pompey would conquer the Mongols in submission and crucified all the mongols. And parade Genghis Khan in chains.
Righteous1 Roman armies puny?!? They fielded upwards of 30,000 men multiple times in different campaigns. At its peak the legions numbered 50 with 5,000 men a piece. That's a professional army of 250,000 men. It is anything but puny.
I was under the impression that the expedition of the mongol horde to the west, was to ensure the stability of trading of the silk road, imposing a "pax mongolica" over western asia. Maybe the mongol would have not go all the way to conquer Europe against a good trading partner like the Roman Empire. Surely war will serve as a meaning to impose a hierarcy: in witch the mongol would have the more profit over the romans. Probably, in the field of war operations, the mongol will have the upperhand over the roman: for been more keen to pulder tattics and been organized enought to be able to plunge in crisis the eastern provinces of the empire, and lure in several ambushes, the roman army sent to deal with them. But the Roman will have the advantage of the Mediterranean: they will be able to deploy troops, supplies, and ambassadeurs fast enought to mitigate and stop the mongols operatives. Of course it will more complicated than that. Btw thanks for the video.
A big component of the Roman Army in this case would have been the Scorpio: Caesar wanted to give 2 Scorpios per century for his campaign against Partia, and Trajan actually did it in his. These Scorpios would demolish the Mongol horse archers
Why do people underestimate the difficulty fighting an ever moving opponent? Huge component would be battlefield at hand and how many shots those scorpios would get on a thundering horse archers in the least... a scorpio takes a predictably moving target not a archer on horseback, flinging missiles back at you the moment they get in range. Even Roman's formations are susceptible to hit and move tactics. Thats not even taking into account for most of these hordes were highly mobile and recouped by drinking the milk from their purposefully brought along mares, as well as having multiple horses available to switch out and disperse the workload. Meaning the Mongols or Huns would've been fit to fight more often versus the Romans. If the Roman's forced the opponent to have to sack a town or city, ofcourse the Roman's would then have the edge. Short story short, try and fire on a moving target and you will see how auxiliary archers with defensive measures would be the only hope for the Romans in anything near an open field.
The Mongols had their own siege equipment and field artillery too. Also, the ancient armies of what is now China had as much if not more field artillery than the Romans. If the medieval Song Dynasty copied the ancient armies with crossbow and field artillery, then they would also have more field artillery than the Romans. The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China talks about at least 248 chariots with different types of mounted field artillery crossbows for every army of 10,000 soldiers. That surpasses a Roman legion with 1-2 scorpions per century (50-100 scorpion field artillery per 2 legions of 10,000 men): "Thirty six Large Yellow Chariots equipped with strong crossbows....this type of chariot can be used to attack solid formations and defeat strong enemies. Seventy two Wuyi chariots with large shields and halberds are guarded by warriors holding crossbows, spears, and halberds on both sides. The height of the wheel is 5 feet. The crossbows fire continuous arrows. They are used to attack solid formations and defeat strong enemies. One hundred and forty Tiyi chariots with small shields are equipped with winch powered crossbows to fire continuous arrows. -The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China." www.google.com/books/edition/The_Seven_Military_Classics_of_Ancient_C/u The Chu Yen records of the Han Dynasty says there was ~537,000 crossbows according to the armory list. The records also say that while the plurality of crossbows (43.8%) were 6 stone (387 lbs or 176 kg), 5.5% of crossbows were Great Yellow Crossbows and were 10 stones and above (645 lbs draw and above, or 293 kg and above). If we assume that the 537,000 crossbows in the armory list referred to all types of crossbows, and 5.5% of these were field artillery crossbows, then we conclude there were 26,850 field artillery crossbows because: 537,000 x 5.5% = 26,850 crossbows. So throughout the major armories the record was referring to, there were 26,850 light field artillery crossbows with 293 kilograms of draw weight and more with long powerstrokes. And if you think 10+ stones (645+ lbs/293+kg) is weak, read about their extremely long powerstroke in a book by Mike Loades: "It took around 20 inches to draw a Chinese crossbow string from its resting position to hook it behind the trigger catch. By contrast, on a European crossbow the powerstroke was typically only 4-5 inches. In part this longer power-stroke was made possible by the design of the Chinese lock, allowing it to locate at the tail-end of the tiller. The long horizontal lever on European crossbows necessitated placing the string-catch much further forward." (p. 9-10 The Crossbow -Mike Loades). This means that a 400 lb (181kg) crossbow with a 18 inch is roughly equivalent to a 1200 lb (544 kg) crossbow with a 6 inch powerstroke from the Middle Ages. A 645lbs/393 kg draw with that 18 inch powerstroke would be like a 1935lbs/878 kg draw weight crossbow with a 6 inch powerstroke.
Being Italian he is very pro Roman. If you look at the Romano-Parthian wars they were either terrible losses or stalemates. The best Rome could do was to get the capital and back off afterward. The Mongols are Parthians with better tactics, troops, discipline, technology and leadership. By the time of Mongol -European conflict the Roman Empire was severely at a disadvantage due to the control over the empire and large scale confederation.
When given a choice of terrain, Romans would deliberately choose terrain that was advantageous to the enemy, to give them a false sense of security. Of course, this strategy didn't work out well for Crassus-- if "strategy" is a term that can be applied in his case.
La cosa che Adoro dei Romani, era la loro adattabilità alle situazioni. Trovare soluzioni contro un nuovo nemico. Organizzazione, professionismo, esperienza. Sicuramente uno scenario interessante questo da entrambe le parti. bel video Raf. continua cosi.
Now this is one fight that the show "Deadliest Warrior" had totally missed and should've done before it went off the air. Also, Mongols (either from Atilla's era or Ghengis Khan's era) vs feudal Japanese samurai's would've been an equally interesting one to analyze.
Depends on which era you want The Roman Empire to be. If it was during the time of the Huns, The Western Roman Empire would be quickly defeated while the Eastern Roman Empire would be able to give a good fight. If it was during the time when the Roman Empire was its peak then they would fail initially but would likely win in the long run.
damn this kind of comments are so stupid and are in every video of youtube one: bla bla bla two: bla bla bla why some people need to put this shit, I will never understand
Unless they face fortifications or heavy cavalry. Or mountains. Or surprise attacks from the sea or across a river. or ambushes. or fleets. or large shields on heavy infantry. or bad luck.
Dude I love your content but..ma boi! You need to improove your audio quality. I can't put my finger on what the problem is but it just sounds muffy and bad.
War carriages are slow and heavy. Mongolian Horse archers are light and fast. Unless the Mongol general tells his troops to charge head on into the war carriages, the men in those war carriages will get hit with thousands of arrows without inflicting a single casualty to any Mongol.
Chariots were mostly used because mounted combat on horseback was difficult in the pre saddle and stirrup world. It's why once these were invented chariots started to fall out of fashion. I think what is more important is the missile weaponry. Since its pretty commonly accepted foot archers are better than mounted archers when fighting each other and the Romans had alot of foot archers. And that's not mentioning that everyone roman lectionary carried throwing spears while most medieval infantry did not. Unless it is by some miracle a repeat of Carrhae which was pretty exceptional circumstances since the parthians only won because they were fighting an offensive roman army who hadn't established proper logistics and basically nobody knew where Crassus was and the Parthians by coincidence were able to keep their horse archers constantly supplied with arrows. Had they ran out the battle would've likely ended with a roman victory. Similarly had Caesar not been assassinated Parthia might have been incorporated into the Roman Empire. It's also worth saying the Romans were pretty well adapted to fighting horse archers societies unlike most people the Mongols fought against. Caltrops being a very common weapon used against horse archers. Can't exactly keep moving if your horse is in constant pain and that just makes you and your horse an easier target for foot archers.
Also worth saying that nomadic horse societies rely on flat open plains to survive which leaves very little options for the Mongols to survive in europe for long. It's why the Scythians, Huns, Avars, Magyars and Cumans all eventually settled in Pannonia since Europe is mostly Woods and Hills and cannot sustain a large nomadic population. The Huns increasingly had to rely on their Germanic allies the further west they went.
VIDEO SUGGESTION: If you were to piece together all of the best helmets, breastplates and such from history into one suit of full plate armor, what would that suit of armor be like? What items would you choose and why? How likely is it that such an armor was used by someone in history? I'd love to know your opinion on the matter and I'm sure it would make for a fun video both for you to make and for all of us to watch.
The best melee helmet was the typical Roman helmet of the 2nd century. It's probably the best helmet design ever invented for all around protection while retaining features that did not cause tunnel vision and hearing loss. Lorica segmentata was probably the best body armor as well, with the helmet designed to augment the pteras by deflecting blows to the shoulders and missing the neck completely. The scutum allowed only th ehhelmet to be visible tothe enemy, thus requiring a slashing blow to have any effectiveness, since the shield hid almost every other part of the legionary from view. The Romans knew that a slashing motion is wasteful of energy and requires a follow though, which in turn, results ina slightly off balanced opponent. That moment is the thrusting moment, which is much faster and much more accurate than a slash. So, despite all the other bits and pieces throughout history, the Roman panoply remains extremely viable. The demise of lorica segmentata was not because it was out dated by technology. It was because it was maintenance intensive, and required lots of iron ribbon. I suspect that though the decades and centuries, it was passed on to other soldiers who made repairs as bestthey could, unitl the iron ribbon became too hard to get in the field and local chain mail became once more common. I also suspect that not all chain mail was very good quality.
Excellent analysis and a good sense of history, too. Thank you for sharing this most interesting and informative video with us. I think what separates your analysis from so many others that I have seen is 1) your inclusion of real history in terms of nation states up front for context, 2) your clear analysis of the actual needs of an army, not just "beans and bullets," and 3) how you stay away from speculative fiction disguised as fact, and that you tend to call out such speculation (there was no united Europe, Italy was not a country, you discuss how Romans adapt to their enemies but you did not try to predict how they would adapt, etc.). Well done, sir, and thank you.
Very similar military reaction of the Chinese, heavy infantry and more ranged attacker. But Chinese have less professionalized soldiers(except small amount that direct serve the general), more restriction on generals
The Romans at the height of their power had a highly adaptable military force. They learned from their defeats and created new strategies to counter their enemies. So yeah they could probably have stopped the Mongols.
Plus, how would the Romans handle the Mongol thunder crash bomb, which was a proto-version of a hand grenade, they used in their invasions of the 13th century.
@Apathetic Apparition i saw 1212! Just downloaded it. Gonna play in a bit. Been messing around with WH2 mostly and R2. Will be a good change of pace though!
I usually think of the Mongols as just another series of nomadic Steppe invaders, alongside the Huns, the White Huns, the Kushans, the Turkic invaders, Golden Horde etc. ua-cam.com/video/Dn7U2Mux9Hs/v-deo.html The Huns, under Atilla's leadership, devastate the Roman Empire/s, so the Mongols, using more modernised battle tactics and technologies, due to being a far later military force, would almost certainly have fared better.
What mass cavalry? Mongols deployed siege engines, horse archers, heavy cavalry, light-heavy infantry from their vassals from Korea to Georgia. They operated almost similarly to the Romans in their utilization of conquered people's. The only main difference between them is their origin as light horse archers and the technological gap in metallurgy. Other than that, it's only politics that can truly tell the battle.
@Michael Terrell II indeed. But the Romans were also Predominantly Italian Infantry. And do bear in mind that mounted archers are near useless against professional soldiers as their bows are less accurate compared to dismounted bowmen. Romans before the 3rd century would spit accurately at the Mongols as they aimed with unfavorable results. Mongols can be tricky to fight with 3rd century onwards or early maniple army Roman legions but imperial era Roman armies would totally crush the Mongols should they ever consider facing them in open battle. The Mongols only won when they surprised an enemy in the first place. And do spell bulk correctly next time. Autocorrect exists in most phones btw.
Romans did fight sassanids (and Parthians too really, but their record wasn't very....just lets pay our respect to crassus. ) I'd think it would be a fair contest really.
I think the Romans would likely use more Spears than they did before. Some european kingdoms did unite during the mongol invasion. Mongols where sometimes beaten by medieval europes united armies. (Not all of europe united but parts) The Holy Roman Empire and the Polish Kingdom united at the Battle of Legnica 1241 for example.
@Catch_Me_If_You_Can Depends how you define the word spear, I didn´t mean throwing spears. Pikes are a type of spear in my understanding, any stick with a spike at the end is some kind of spear for me in that regards. I don´t think that the pike would have been usefull, because mongol riders didn´t charge into closed lines, the pike was reinvented in the late middle ages to prevent heavy cavalry charges, the mongols didn´t really have heavy cavalry. Pikes would have been not that usefull. They are unwieldy in close combat, I think the classical spear with around 2 and a half meters length, some call them lances would suit this circumstance fairly good.
Well, in a way Romans vs Mongols did happen as the Mongols fought the Latin Empire which was a part of the broken Eastern Roman Empire. I would have liked to see Byzantines/Eastern Rome vs Mongols tackled, as I think that gives a good indication of how an army with institutionalized knowledge of logistics and tactics and with a direct line to the classical Roman armies would fare against them, and they were contemporaries. In fact what happened when the Eastern Romans found the Mongols would probably be what would happen if classical Rome met them: they would pay them to get them to stop being a nuisance, provided they had the economical capacity to do so.
I say it can go either way, if the Romans caught up quickly with the tech the Mongols already have like stirrups, crossbows, & new siege weapons. Now lets say the Roman Empire survived to what would've the medieval period and obtained the same level of medieval technology by around the time the Mongols invaded. Roman legions w/ various armour styles from light to heavy, knowledge of medieval & ancient warfare & strategies collaborated together (example: Imagine Roman Cavalry in full plate charging Mongolian horsemen w/ lance in hand, utilizing newer & bigger siege weapons & utilizing crossbows, their "foot" better armed & protected). So in short the Romans military still maintained everything from warfare, strategy & weapons & also took in everything medieval to their empire combining the 2 making them more powerful. If Mongols think they can terrorize Romans w/ their methods, you would definitely see Romans retaliate back w/ their methods. Crucifying captured Mongols
Crassus and his legions were destroyed by the Parthians, who used similar attacks to those of the Mongols- horse mounted archery, feigned retreats, etc. So I would put my money on the Mongols. Especially if Subotai and Jebbe were in Command.
To all those who say "Mongols were unstoppable" look on the siege of Esztergom. Since their logistic to sustain their armies at the front was based on pillaging villages and taking from there food resources, it would have been sufficient to create some kind of no man's land on the borders and raise fortified villages on the inside (for food production) while creating small hearth fortifications on the borders capable to protect infantry from the attacks of the enemy formations.
Primo, the Siege of Esztergom was conducted by Ottomans, not Mongols. Secundo, No mans' lands were ultimately beneficial to Mongols/Tatars, not their adversaries while lines of fortifications proved to be unreliable in stoping their raids. Just look up the history of the Crimean Khanate. Russians were trying to protect themselves by building chains of fortified posts, similar to what you're describing.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 Ottomans in 1241? Hardly That's the second siege of Esztergom carried on by Süleyman I. I was talking about the one carried by Batu Khan which did not ended well for the Mongols. In the Rus they used great fortifications, I was talking more like lines of trenches going deep in the border from which launch rapid guerrilla attacks.
The Romans did meet the Mongols.. in fact they were allies because they had common enemies (not the Mongols of Genghis Khan of course, I meant the golden horde )
I am not a soldier, so I only make hypothesis. Roman shield and "loricae" in the testudo formation, that was invented against arrows, could have resisted the shower of arrows and the testudo itself, with the tickness of pilum aligned, would have prevented a Mongol cavalry attack aimed to breakthrough. But a legion could not remain in testudo formation forever, sooner or later they would have been forced to move and in this case the superior mobility of Mongols would be a very important factor.
Perhaps I am biassed since I am descended from Temujin through my mother's mother's family; but I think the Romans would have had a very hard time fighting against the Mongols. I agree, they would have done better than the European armies which the Mongols did face historically, but the tactics the Mongols used were very different from what the Romans were used to, and also, the Mongols were used to adapting their tactics on the fly to meet an evolving situation. I still think the Mongols would have won. The only reason they didn't conquer all the way to the Atlantic Ocean was that they were called back because of the death of Ogodai.to select the new khan. I have spent a lot of time studying the history of the Mongols, and also of the Greeks and Romans. I read both Greek and Latin. Sadly I do not read Mongolian, so I must rely on translations. You may find the book The Secret History Of The Mongols worth reading, as well as Genghis Khan, Emperor Of All Men by Harold Lamb. Finally, just for fun, watch this, ua-cam.com/video/pD1gDSao1eA/v-deo.html
Always the same myth. Not true: The only reason they didn't conquer all the way to the Atlantic Ocean was that they were called back because of the death of Ogodai.to select the new khan. Mongols withdrew without know anything about khan's death, simply they had no plans to conquer europe. Just read the english wikipedia and the muslim source of mongol withdraw.
@@juanbelmonte8920 Wikipedia, forsooth! If you rely on that source, then you are a fool. Read the other sources not written by Eurocentric apologists. They DID know about the Khan's death. They had the finest communications network in the world, the Yam. www.warriorsandlegends.com/mongol-warriors/mongol-war-communications/ You're obviously just a butt hurt Euro, still smarting because my ancestors kicked your ass.
@@powellmountainmike8853 Wikipedia arent just opinions, it cites a primary source: "Rashid Al-Din, a historian of the Mongol Ilkhanate, explicitly states in the Ilkhanate's official histories that the Mongols were not even aware of Ogedei's death when they began their withdrawal.[61] Rashid Al-Din, writing under the auspices of the Mongol Empire, had access to the official Mongol chronicle when compiling his history (Altan Debter). " Hence no, mongols dont withdrew because dead of nobody, in fact they spend a entire year on campaigns on Turkey, and repressing the cuman revolt. By the way, without Subodai the second invasion of Hungary was totally crushed. PD: I'm very glad Mongolia is today a hole of misery (LOL).
Speaking of "green vs seasoned" warriors, I remember hearing from a US Army Ranger not too long ago, about his first deployment to Iraq during the GWOT. American Rangers (from the 75th Ranger Regiment) are considered elite due to their intense selection and training, as well as their high degree of motivation. However, he said that when he conducted his first night raid in support of CAG (often referred to as Delta Force or other names), the gunfire, explosions, and incoming rounds caused sensory overload and he found himself with tunnel vision and being almost immobilized by it all. He said, however, that when he saw the Delta guys, shooting and advancing into enemy fire as if it was all just a training simulation, he realized just how important experience and acclamation was in a firefight. By the end of his first deployment, he too had been in dozens of firefights and had adjusted to the calamity of combat.
We have to look at some historical facts.Alexanders army ,defeated theScythians horse warriors.they used almost the same tactics as the Mongols.also the Greek phalanx defeated the Persian Cavalry many times.at the time of Mongols the infantry of their opponents was very weak .
I think the Mongols would just sit back and wait for the right moment to strike like if rome was split into two and under constant threat of other raiding cultures in mean time keep themselves occupied by raiding other places
One very important factor gained with Battle-Hardened Troops in the Time periods where Armies Fought primarily in “Formations/ Ranks & Columns of Soldiers facing off”. The maneuvering would be much more precise & responsive to Orders from the Commanders. Because, Those Battle hardened/ Battle experienced individuals & lower ranking Leaders would be much more aware of their situation and they would be more prepared & organized. As well as sort of even anticipating the orders which were likely to come from the Commander to carry out particular formation maneuvers and actions. Because they would’ve likely encountered similar situations & conditions and know what to expect the Commanders to do. And perhaps even take the initiative with smaller actions in preparation, Which could have prevented the necessity of some actions, Or just enable that larger actions & maneuver ordered by the General to be more effective &/or successful.
Hummmm, I'm having an obsession lastly with Romans and Mongols.... Metatron is spying me???? 😹😹😹😹 I actually can't stop thinking about the only thing that seemed to save medieval Europe from Mongols at the Mongolian Raid, the stone rampants, I think that Romans could do very well against Mongols, I consider it a tie, since both parties were very effective in their own ways, and it would be a very epic Battle to see XD
I said it as a joke.i dont really care which faction is stronger, although i like mongols and theyre style of fighting and equipment is particular, thats why im biased(and ancestral ties, im tatar btw).in the end all are just states, they are not perfect and all have theyre goods and bads
How the Romans would do with the Mongols can be seen in how the Romans did against the Parthians. Initially overconfident then bewildered, as Crassus was. Then they'd roll over them.
I have a question for you as an Italian. Do you (and the Italian people) see yourself as the heir and successor of the Roman Empire? If so, do you see the Italian people as the heir and successor of the Byzantine Empire as well? (Because the Byzantine Empire is a direct continuation of the Roman Empire)
@@SonsOfLorgar Intriguing to know with the Italian people (and owner of this UA-cam channel) see themselves as successors and heirs of the Roman Empire or for whom the Roman Empire was a culture and empire that ruled Italy and died like many others who ruled Italy or parts of Italy
@@Vigoda.d Italian people generally see themselves as heir of the Roman Empire and the original Roman ethnicity and culture, even if we know that Italy is not the successor of Rome we still consider ourselves as people as the successor of the Roman people. That is probably one of the reasons Metatron said: "I, of cuorse chose the Romans" when sponsoring the game, we can't help but feel somehow proud and having a strong liking towards the Romans
I think that Italians feel like heir of roman empire, and I also think that because when byzantine empire started to fell down, empire was only ruled by Greeks so Greek nationalists claim byzantine empire as greek
Oof this is such a hard question to answer. I think time period would make a huge difference. Cause the Mongols had a habit of adapting armour, weapons, and even peoples. Anouther thing worth considering is if any European people, say the Germanic, would join or resist the Mongols. I feel that would make such a huge difference.
Download Rise of Kingdoms from my link patron.me/MetatronRoK today and immortalize your journey!
Be sure to check out the link above where you can be 1 of 1000 people to get a $20 gift card to AR500!
Redeem code: ConquerROK in-game!
Cool match up interesting
Mongols relied on adaptations,psychological warfare,subterfuge,Firepower and Mobility,various sources of intelligence and Mongols also had discipline
Im not into citybuilding games but Ill check it out. Keep up the content.
Great video. Do you plan on doing one about how the Roman Empire during the imperial era would've dealt with the Arab invasions?
Man I though you got lost missed your videos
Mongols: “We have massacred every soul in this city before us. Are you ready to surrender?”
Roman Solider: “I just work here man.”
Take the second Punic war. Hannibal at the doors burning fields. "I am ready for your surrender". Roman: "So it is war!"
The leaders would want blood. Hannibal was not one to massacre civilians either. So having savages kill civilians, I think they would just go mad. Raise army after army.
@@ODDnanref totally agree. I'm a fan of carthaginian history. And I believe a few armies under hannibal would also extinguish the Mongols.. He might need scipio by his side to actually take the mongol stronghold though
@@ODDnanref there wont be much of an army left if civilians get massacred. Mercs require money. No civs to work, no taxes, no taxes, no mercs.
Rome Soldiers Rome would starve the Mongols to submission. That’s what Julius Caesar would do.
@@thunderdogs7238 cant starve the mongols. They have equal, if not greater, wealth to rome.
Mongols: Appear
Caesar: Start digging a trench across Italy
A point he missed is the Romans heavily utilised earthworks, something the armies of medieval Europe didn't do.
@@comradecam9530 Offa's Dike would like to have a word with you. It was an earthwork built in Anglo-Saxon time to separate the English Kingdoms and the Welsh Kingdoms. Yes, there were multiple little kingdoms in each land at the time.
@@comradecam9530 how ever you could say the Mongols would have found a way to adapt to it like they did with everything else thrown at them
@@mattfromwiisports2468 but the romans also did this, every time they face a new enemy technologie that seems helpfull, they adapt it, upgrade it, and mass produce it...
Bshhh mongols move faster then you think dude by the time ceaser finish building his trench the mongols already took all of Italy lol while majorty of Roman troops work on trenches the mongols would just hire Anglo saxons and other barbarians to distory it haha this guy M U thinking a long trench would stop a massive horse army you have to be kidding me😝😝😝
Mongol Commanders: *uses mass killings of civilians as psychological trauma tactic*
Roman Generals: “Just another beautiful day in the neighborhood...”
@Michael Terrell II he did, he had them crucified all along one of the main roads.
@Michael Terrell II NO, it was Crassus who did it.
Caesar was nowhere near the Roman italic region. But instead of Caesar it was Pompeius later both of them and Caesar become the 1st triumvirate.
Romans supported the Mongols in their campaigns in the Middle East. Byzantines are considered Romans by the way.
@Michael Terrell II I mean, it was kinda understandable, they were a massive rebellion and it was an example to anyone else who wanted to rebel.
A video about Roman equipment in the middle ages if western Rome would have survived would be epic
It would actually be really interesting to speculate about it
I think such empire would just be the Byzantine empire on steroids, so most likely the equipment would be similar to byzantine. Late Roman army was similar in both west and east.
I foresee a Medieval Latin Roman army being essentially a historical Medieval Roman army but with more germanic influence both in its ethnic make-up and its aesthetics, possibly also including a measure of germanic common law mixed into the legal systems.
@Catch_Me_If_You_Can something like a way stronger Byzantine empire
@@matthewneuendorf5763 Maybe a professional medieval army with standard equipment
The biggest problem of beating Mongols/Tatars that everyone seems to miss is that you first have to force them to accept a battle. Which they don't have to do at all, having operational superiority coming from their mobility.
This very problem occurred in real history. Once Poland and Muscovy started to be more proficient with beating Mongols, they would simply refuse regular battles with the exception of conditions that were very favorable to them. Otherwise, they would rely on raids and hit and run tactics that would result in a destroyed economy, depopulation, and exhausted, underpaid, and demoralized armies.
Whole generations of Polish and Russian commanders were figuring out tactics and strategies to overcome this problem.
This is where logistics come in. How fast can you move your troops? Can you chase after your enemy so that he can't rest, or is it you who can't rest?
This is where the Roman Castel and highway system comes in. By highway, I mean roads and rivers, where messengers can travel fast and e.g. change horses, or pass on messages to new riders.
B-but when you engage their army they can only retreat one time in a totally random direction and then they get stuck in a magic square which neither side can leave before the other is destroyed in its entirety! Trust me I played Rome 2
Because we assume that the frame is mongols invading the roman empire, not romans marching in the steppe for thousand of miles in the hope of conquering kharakhorum. They had enough after Marcus Crassus for sure.
@@edi9892 In the case of a Tatar army that went on a raid chasing them was usually regarded as the worst approach. Firstly because it was hard to predict where they would attack in the first place, even if you had prepared outposts and patrols information about the attack took some time to reach the army. In the meantime, Tatars would often be either long gone or already deep in your territory wreaking havoc.
"By highway, I mean roads and rivers, where messengers can travel fast and e.g. change horses, or pass on messages to new riders." ---Since Mongols would usually attack during winter which meant crossing rivers was easy for them, while using rivers for messengers was impossible. Mongols also had an advantage in the form of step horses that could easily feed during winter while European horses need to be supplied with grain.
The easiest way to catch them was to either wait until they loot a lot and feel safer and decide to make a camp, then attack the camp. If you managed to remain undetected for long enough. Since slaves and loot where their primary motives, Tatars would usually try to defend their camp since all that additional baggage meant it was impossible for them to escape quickly enough.
Another way was to wait till Tatar army was done with looting and was going back to the steps. When they were weighed down by loot, Tatars weren't able to cross rivers so easily thus were forced to use bigger, and thus well-known river crossing which allowed to plan ahead, and block the passage with your army in order to force them to accept battle. Both these strategies were very costly and still weren't working 100% of the time.
@@ilmaio And what would stop the Mongols from making the base of operations in Cental-Eastern Europe and launch a series of raids into the Roman territory? You know, to loot and take slaves while the devastating Roman economy in the process. Then, only launch final invasion once Rome is weakened or force them to pay tribute like Huns did?
Ordinary soldier: Shit, if we lose against the Mongols, they're going to kill us all.
Roman _miles:_ If they get through us, they're going to kill everyone! Hold the line!
more like "if they get trough us we either get decimated i get a paycut or my commander will personally beat the shit out of me with a wooden gladius"
Well, medieval armies didn't entirely fail at stopping the Mongols. After all, medieval feudal armies finally started repelling their raids and eventually started to process of overthrowing Tatar/Mongol states.
@The Dank Meme Mastah
They managed to conquer China despite China being much more advanced than Medieval Russians.
The mongols could not take atrishon, so when the europian had gotten to know them they no longer surrendered but instead fough to the end, causing unsasteinable losses to the mongols.
Also the mongols could not hold land, the entirety of their advantages dissapear if they are besieged in fortifications or trie to hold their grownd agaist a direct assault.
@Nobody Nobody2 When gunpowerder became popular they won many. Russian did coquer them all.
@@johnrockwell5834 The Song dynasty of China was advanced in poetry and paintings which were and will always be useless in battles, that's why they got their sorry ass handed to them by the illiterate but militarily advanced Mongols.
@Walker Texas Wanker
What BS is that?! Did you forget how those dynasties were formed? That's right by hundreds of years of internal WAR. You think they didn't have armies?
Dear god our educational system really is screwed
A random country in Europe: Gets invaded by Mongols
Japan: Gets invaded by Mongols
The divine wind: Say no more
The Divine Wind was an act of nature.
But I think the Mongols would have had a much harder time with the Japanese than with the east Europeans
@ Watch the battle in King and generals channel, they landed and didn't got further than the beachs, most of the troops were Chinese and Korean tho, a Mongol soldier would be useless invading Japan coasts anyway
@Catch_Me_If_You_Can Exactly man, so hyped for the game to release
@Kaiser Franz von Lappen der 2. Nope The divine wind and divine sandstorm are completely different
@ We don't know for sure how many ships had flaws in them. However, even without flaws, storms would be very dangerous to ships. The Romans lost their entire fleet to a storm off of the coast of Sicily during the First Punic War, and the storms in the Mediterranean are far calmer than a typhoon in the Pacific.
Caesar vs Genghis both veteran armies... that would have been a rough matchup
Caesar would build walls
@@whydama Mongols would use Mongonels and Trebuchets.
Caesar would build walls around The Mongols and starve them into submission.
Thunder Dogs that’s funny.. mongols literally rode around city walls until the people starve to death. They also stole and obtained really advance siege weapons.
Scipio vs Subutai?
6:38 Ah yes, the infamous Roman General SCVTVM GLADIVS AEM LORICA HELMET GALLEA
LOL General Scutum Gladius xD
Lololol
I'd say the Roman probably pay the Mongol to leave. The Mongol would depart while dragging a few engineers their way and send trade, assuming no messenger was killed. If the Mongol came back, they'd came with Roman siege corp on horseback.
The mongol themselves was an empire. The Roman was great but they'd have had a huge wake up call. Had they fought the Mongol, they'd probably have fired their German and hired the Mongol for the positions. They both have that kinda adaptability in them.
I don't think that the mongols would have enough compensation to fight the romans. Just as they did later in medieval times, if it wasn't a good fight they would just not take it. I particularly think that the mongolians could "grind" the roman provinces slowly, by hitting and running, but it would cost them heavily. It would be bad for both of them, and that's why I think the mongols would happily accept payment to leave.
They might've probably said "Hey, how about we give you 100 box of Gold for your Khan and you sent 100 of your best Horse Bois so you can train our troops to fight like your Horse Bois, also i want those explosive thinggy you use as a weapon, those shit lit yo"
With regards -GENERAL SCVTVM GLADIVS.
Reminds me of Chandragupta who paid the Persians 500 elephants to heck out of India
Mongol would crush roman don't get why this is even debatable ......mogol had acces to Chinese gunpowder and other advance weapons for that time ...Romans did NOT
the Romans feared the Germanics enough to call them "Bearmen" due to their Raw Strength. i think they'd hire the mongols as proto-cataphracts though
It's strange that when discussing commanders, you seem to imply that this factor would give the Romans more chances. You mention Scipio Africanus compared to Hungarian King, but you don't mention Subotai. That guy was arguably one of the top 5 generals in world history. And in most cases, while there have been bad Roman commanders who were chosen due to their noble heritage and financial power, Genghis Khan was particularly known for his meritocratic policy, which was the main reason behind his incredible success. He would recruit the best of the best among different, even hostile tribes, regardless of noble lineage, and such were the cases of Subotai and Jebe, two of his best commanders. Additionally, most known battles where the mongols were involved, they seem to have the strategic and tactical advantage so I'd say that the commander factor weighs much more towards the Mongols than the Romans.
While I definitely agree that Mongolian generals were extremely skilled, Scipio is just undeniably one of the best of all time and I think Rome just had a lot of generals throughout history that had to take on other legendary generals and win. In this case beating Hannibal Barca is obviously a pretty good achievement and the diversity of enemies that the Romans fought probably meant they were more prepared than the mongols
I think his point was that Hungary and other nations directly involved didn't have as good of commanders as the Romans on average. He's not discounting the Mongol commanders (who were usually very skilled). When discussing advantage he means Rome would have the advantage over medieval commanders when facing the Mongols. At least thats what I got from it.
@Clown World 2020 what?? Actually Rome fought Sassanids and Parthians trading equally... And those peoples didn't achieve nothing but killing some Romans. Rome wasn't really threatened, and when this happened Odenathus destroyed them. On the other hand, the Romans took Ctesiphon and as far as the sea. This romantic idea of cavalry archers going pew pew on the Romans isn't something really historically relevant, in my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong. Additionally, we should put into context the victories and the defeats of each side. Then we realize how political stability is the key in this confrontation
There's a saying in boxing, that "You can only look as good as the other guy in the ring allows you to". In other words, a General can only be "Top 5", if other Generals allowed themselves to be conquered by him.
In a favorable terrain with a lot of room for maneuver, Mongols vs Roman would be like the battle of Carrhae. The Roman legionaries could take cover with their scutum shield, but there were legionaries wounded by the arrows all the time. And, whenever the legionaries tries to close in or the auxiliary archers brought in, the horse archer simply just take off and attack another part of the army (this was the case in Carrhae). But with Mongols things will be much more worse. One thing nobody mentions is the independence of each sub-commander. Mongol army can operate on several army group, as seen in Russian campaign or the campaign in China, with each group herding the enemies to a certain killing field. In modern military term, the Mongol perform a "Deep Battle". The Mongols are not only attacking the army, but with their highly mobile and independent commander also disturb any kind of supply or information flow. Put the enemy in a state which they can only react and not making initiative.
I've read too many books on Mongols military. Soooo yeah, I might be biased. But, if Subotai were given order and full support by the Khan to invade Rome. There will be soo much trouble for Rome. One they might not be able to handle nor recover from.
I think the many battles and wars between the Romans and first the Parthians and later on the Sassanids can provide a good case study of how the Romans faired against cavalry-focused armies (especially horse archers).
The first engagement would most probably have gone to the opponent due to the sheer tactical flexibility and speed of the horse archers. However, the Roman response usually comes swiftly and with the tools suited to the problem: when the Parthians won in Carrahe and later pressed into Syria, they were eventually turned back when they were faced with concentrated slingers and archers (I can't remember well, but I think it was under Cassius who took over from Crassus). With the Sassanids at Darra, the Romans were expecting the attack and the kind of army that's facing them, and so they dug fortifications all over the place to counter the possible uses of the cavalry.
Speaking of fortifications, it's probably one of the best weapons in the Romans toolbox. Although engineering in Medieval times has progressed much further than antiquity, the Romans had the advantage of standardisation and logistical uniformity. That meant that in the middle of a completely plain area, a Roman legion can pluck in a fortress almost overnight. Having a secure base for your army can open up a number of new options against an enemy who may not be as adaptive (if the wars of Caesar do not convince you of how well and easily the legions could set up camps and fortifications, I don't know what would).
At Carrhae, Crassus had not followed the advice of general Gaius Cassius Longinus regarding the deployment of troops, which is probably the main reason for its defeat, the legions having been because of his bad choice found surrounded by an enemy with an uninterrupted shooting capacity. A tactic of hit and run in rolling fire, in the middle of a plain with no other form of cover than their shields that, it seems, the Parthian arrows were able to partially pierce. In any case the legions found themselves unable to maneuver, despite an attempt to break the encirclement, which turned out to be completely unsuccessful because the Parthians had obviously foreseen it.
If we put this in parallel with the battle of Teutoburg, we can attest that ambushes are really the bane of the Roman army.
Finally someone that doesn't give the edge to the Mongols just because of the horse archers and knows enough about Roman history to focus not entirely on the battle of carrahe
The war between Parthians and Romans ended in draw, the legions could not build fortification when on the move or during a battle, and any formation they implement on the field the Parthian horse archers could have flank and surround them anyway, unless they head their back against the woods, river, mountain, etc, but that would leave them in a defensive position all the time. On Parthians side, they just couldn't surpass the Romans fortifications. And that lasted like this for more than 500 years until the Mongols arrived and defeated the post Parthian caliphates tactics in just 2 years.
The Mongols then could have used their typical tactics with the addition of gunpowder bombs, flaming cartwheels and fire-spurting lances that they could throw into the compact legionary formations.
Magister Militum honestly, the fact that the mongols defeated more technologically sophisticated armies regularly and had commanders that could give any Roman commander a run for his money and also Mongols were highly disciplined themselves. The obvious edge goes to the Mongols. The Persians were a near peer power in the region to the romans but the mongols absolutely annihilated a much stronger Persian state in Khwarezmid Empire.
The battle of Cyrrhestica in 38 BC was a decisive victory for the Roman general Publius Ventidius Bassus - Caesar’s muleteer - against the Pathian Crown prince (who was killed in action). Ventidius used slingers with especially large lead shot against the horse archers and cataphracts (not that mongols had those) to equally good effect. Fearing Antony’s jealousy Ventidius didn’t follow up - other than to destroy the remnants of the pathian army in retreat. Anthony for his part took a dozen legions into Armenia towards Parthia, but was lured into splitting his army from his baggage train and had to retreat several hundred miles in winter on the Armenian steep, harried all the way by the entire pathian army. After his initial blunder he made good his retreat by maintaining discipline, tight formations of defensive squares and timely counter attacks reminiscent of Wellington’s retreats into Portugal. Between the combined experiences of both Ventidius and Antony lies a tactical plan to seriously fuck the mongols up. Imagine a 12 legion battle group (including auxiliary horse archers, regular Calvary, Batavians, slingers etc as well as heavy infrantry) fighting on a line of retreat into its own territory, being replenished all the way, counter punching at will on ground of its own choosing. It would not end well for the mongols.
9:29 "yes, I'm Italian, thank you for that."
😂
Before the Mongols even reached the Middle East and Hungary, they destroyed Chinese armies which were the most technologically advanced military at the time. They adopted Chinese siege works and conscripted their conquered as first wave "arrow catchers".
Ghengis Khan had one of the most advanced spy network in the world and was able to make the Silk Road one of the safest travel routes for merchants.
I think you gravely underestimate Ghengis Khan's horde.
Not to mention China is so battle hardened place they are very used for war.
Warring states > Three Kingdoms > Eight Princes etc.
And each generation had briliant generals and strategists. They passed their knowledge to later generations. You have figures lile Zhou Yu, Zhuge Liang or Cao Cao or Sun Tzu. Their knowledge helped to shape millitary of China.
But even will all their technology and centuries of warfare they still couldnt defeat the mongols.
I think people are just too biased towards fancy and popular Rome.
Hungarian army was the best the Europe could pull together in about 100s of years in that 1230s-1240s and Subotoi easily destroyed. The whole Europe were stunned and feared to death , even the French had feared , even the British was stunned ,there was nothing other than death of the Khan which saved entire Europe or it would've fallen under ogedei
@@aadithnarayanan5458 hungarians army wasnt the best of europe and nobody consider it so.
they still lose.
@@aadithnarayanan5458 Bullshit the hungarians weren't the best army of europe and you have to consider that the germans fought the magyars (which were also horse nomads) and defeated them.
Hungarys terrain was perfect for the mongol conquest because it's mostly empty steppe with little to no mountains. Maybe the mongols could have conquered the HRE (I highly doubt that) but their conquest would end at the french border because their army has to overcome thousands of castles, hills and heavy forrested regions and after that their army wouldn't be strong enough to conquer the rest of europe
I clicked this way too quickly
Hay guys I'm a little late
In a one off battle, I'd favour the Mongols. In a prolonged war, the Romans take it.
One thing that cannot be understated is the sheer resilience of the Roman state and it's cultivation of loyalty amongst the people it governed.
Hannibal won crushing victory after victory vs Rome but not only did they tank those losses but also attacked his exposed flanks (Spain) whilst he was tied down in Italy.
The Cimbrian war is another example, as is Shapur I's invasion during the 3rd century and the hunnic raids during the 400s. In those cases, a weakened Rome was able to reverse the enemy gains through outlasting them, whether through military force, bribery or a combination of both. This resilience would only be stronger during the era of the Principate at it's peak.
Verdict: Initial Mongol successes, followed by a realisation that a full conquest is impossible. All the while, the Romans gradually learn how to more effectively counter Mongol warfare leading to reversals of Mongol gains + possible counterattack.
Hannibal nor the huns were as strong as the mongols.If the mongols had initial success,they would pick rome apart in 2years like they did to kwarezmian empire.There is no outlasting them,they are the fastest army the world had ever seen.
That's exactly what happened in Europe. The Mongols won the initial battles but when they returned they were repelled by the Hungarian and Polish armies. So Hungary and Poland won the war.
Rome all things considered did ok against the Parthians. The Parthians were conquered by the Sassanids, who posed a much larger challenge to the Romans. The Sassanids were considered by the various Islamic powers which were in turn destroyed by the Mongols in a matter of years, while Rome couldn’t even conquer a fraction of the same region in the few hundred years they found over Mesopotamia. I don’t care how fancy Roman soldiers looked, how awesome their roads are, they are an ancient power with comparatively primitive tactics and technology’s compared to the Mongols and would be utterly massacred in an all out war with the Mongols, or any Medieval empire of comparable size. Hell even a small kingdom like England could put a hell of an impressive dint in the Roman Empire and could almost certainly defend themselves from a Roman invasion. Don’t get me wrong, Rome during its height was certainly impressive for its time, but its military might has been grossly exaggerated. There was a reason why Rome reformed its military under the Byzantine empire to make use of combined arms tactics, more practical armor, and much better cavalry. The imperial Roman army as most people know it was meant to combat the peoples Rome was familiar with: the various phalanxes of the various Greek successor states, the relatively disorganized Celtic and Iberian tribes, and other classical peoples of the Mediterranean. And it did a mighty fine job at it. However as new and stronger breeds of horses were being bred in Central Asia and Persia, and as Rome came into military conflict with these people, large armies of largely homogeneous heavy infantry backed up with local auxiliaries simply couldn’t cut it any more. So Rome did what it always did and adapted changing its classical military doctrine to the more modern military doctrines of the latter Eastern Roman Empire. This adaptation didn’t happen over night, and took place over decades of continuous fighting against cultures that were comparatively primitive when compared to the Mongols. So if the classical Roman Empire at its height was to face the Mongols in an all out war it wouldn’t be fare in the slightest. I mean what could a Roman army even do against the Mongols? What are they just going to form up a nice little battle line, hold up their shields and expect the Mongols to fall upon and slaughter themselves like they’re being controlled by a total AI engine? How could they even reach the Mongols? All Mongol soldiers are mounted, their bow technology far outclass anything the Romans or any civilization had at the time, and even if the Romans could reach them they sure as shit aren’t going to do jack shit against their more advanced armor. On an open field the Roman cavalry would be cut down, their skirmishers would be outraged and outmatched and they would be surrounded. Cut off from their supplies and facing constant arrow fire they would be helpless against a heavy cavalry charges. If the Romans struggled against Parthian heavy cavalry then they’re really going to hate fighting heavy Mongol cavalry. Even if the Romans decidedly fight a defensive war, the Mongols were masters of siege warfare. If they could overcome the comparatively massive fortifications of Southern China and Persia what good are the Roman fortifications going to do? Ultimately he Romans (at their height) and the Mongols were separated by over a thousand years in which warfare and technology had drastically improved. The Spartans were great warriors, but they would still lose against the Romans for the same reason the Romans would loose against the Mongols, better technology, better mobility, more refined tactics, more flexible logistics and more man power if you factor in the Mongolian subjects in China and Persia, however even without the extra man power the results would still be the same, an overwhelming Mongol victory.
Lol rome only lived because hannibal refused to sack rome. They had no defenses. The mongols under genghis didnt care for anything but utter annihilation of their enemies. Pretty sure rome would be under heavy military stress(gallic tribes would side with the mongols after a few victories). The edges roman military has over the mongols are their engineering, heavy infantry and landscape knowledge.
@@TheChimples mongols had internal conflicts with each other after the Khan died. If it weren't for that... mongols would tooken all of Europe.
One of the factors that I think many people don't appreciate is the Mongol use of gunpowder. The Mongols were among the first armies in history to make effective use of gunpowder weapons, using weapons like cannons, hand guns and grenades. Roman equipment, training and formations were meant to deal with arrows, stones and javelins. They were not meant to deal with explosives and gunpowder artillery.
wasn't that actually happen with the HUNS
They were similar in sense of Nomadic Horde coming from Euroasia steps same as mongols.
Yes tactic wise they are different so as armor and weapons. And leaders
To put it simply the Mongols were way more professional than the Huns and made more use of shock cavalry. A very refined and well-oiled machine compared to the prototypes that were Classical nomadic empires.
Huns were the shock cavalry for quite a few centuries after arriving to Europe. They were feared so much that just of them 70 was enough to win a battle against 30k in 535 in Northen Africa according to Procopius.
@Catch_Me_If_You_Can yeah but Romans of the Huns period were unprepared and divided and passing through diverse crises, a united and stable Roman empire could beat the Huns, and they did after all, the Mongol army as evolution of the Huns would be a fair match
HUNS didn't have the Military of the Mongols. Nor did they have Persian and Chinese Engineers.
1:11 “The sinews of war are infinite money.” -Marcus T. Cicero
"The sinews of war are not gold, but good soldiers" - Niccolo Machiavelli
Sounds like someone likes to play Total War
Carthage "Yea, about that...."
TrenchWarEnthusiast and we all know how his own advice worked out for The Prince
I believe romans will build many forts fast and even trenches like julius caisar in his campaign in greece for example. Mongols will be in a ww1 type battle if they fight a general like julius caisar because makeshift forts and trenches will bug them down.
Russians tried this approach and failed spectacularly. The only strategy that worked sort of reliably was a mobile defense force put by Poles, consisting of standing army of professional cavalry.
Mongols had persian and chinese engineers whose catapults destroyed dirt/wooden fortifications. Read about the fall of Rus principalities for examples.
Massive walls of big metropolis in China and middle east could not stop them. I doubt a ditch with some wooden stakes and walls could. You need terrain, lots of castles and a highly mobile army to stop them. The best weapon the romans would have is their wealth to pay off and bribe individual mongol commanders
They would have already taken most of China and what is now Iran by the time they arrived on Roman territory. Those civilizations had castles that were very substantial, thus the engineers that trailed the Mongol armies. There is not really an instance where a castle withstood a determined Mongol assault until later after they had "settled" and were a familiar threat, and perhaps a lesser force.
@@whirving They did struggle at taking stone castles in their first incursion into hungary, since their catapults were much better at taking down wood and earth defenses
An important factor to consider with the Mongol Empire at its peak was that its commanders were unified under their Khan, mostly undivided by political squabbles. This meant that they would very reliably work together to achieve a common goal, something that the Romans sometimes had trouble with. In addition, the Mongols had many strategies up their sleeve, such as well-organized raiding, reliable intelligence, and a high level of proficiency in siege warfare. Romans turtling down into defensive fortifications would play right into Mongol hands, as the Mongols would simply fan out and encircle them, pillaging the land around them. Eventually any Roman commander would be forced to march into the open.
Finally! Two of the most disciplined and well organized armies clash together!
It's very difficult to imagine a war between the Romans and the Mongols but probably against a disciplined and impenetrable Roman formation the Mongols would have used Chinese gunpowder a lot. The Romans would have been terrified by that kind of weapons and their formations would have been broken more easily. The effectiveness of this tactic depends on how many weapons based on gunpowder were in the hands of the Mongol Empire at that time.
It's like Redcoats vs modern day Swiss militia. No question who's more well drilled overall, but the technological difference would have been massive.
Or Mongols could do he same as in the battle of Carrhae, shotting tons of arrows and maintaining its distance.
Ypu forget that the Roman's were known for adapting technology to thier own uses so while yes the first few battles would be definetly swayed by the gunpowder of the mongols I think later battles would be less affected
@@rasiabsgamingcorner2258 Mongols doing the same thing They used Chinese and Persian engineers.
Roman Legions were massacred by Parthian horse archers in the battle of Carrhae, and after that defeat, Rome lost interest campaigning eastward.
Thx for the mention. We were crushed back then, a significant portion of the population were wiped out (somewhere between 10-90% depending on region), but our kingdom lived on and the rebuild attempt brought many innovations, for example castle buildings, which helped a lot in our later struggles. Greetings from Hungary!
Thank you for watching!
The Mongols strengthen in battle was their fast mobility, largely due to their expert horse riding and fighting (archery) from horseback. The Romans methods were different (due to time period) and their strength was their foot soldiers, their solid formations, superior training/discipline etc., to crush the enemy. Hence, in open space fighting, the mongols will ride circles around the Romans, rain arrows on the Roman formations and finally destroy them. In close quarter fighting ( in hilly terrains, dense forests etc, say, like Scottish highlands), the Roman being better armored, better trained etc), will slaughter the Mongols. BTW, other than the Japanese, the Mongols were beaten by the Vietnamese and the Javanese where the dense tropical terrain didn't allow the Mongols to maximize the efficiencies of horseback fighting warfare...
Well the Japanese didn't really beat the Mongols, the typhoons did. Plus a significant portion of the army the Mongols deployed in Japan were either Chinese or Korean troops, not their usual Turkic horse archer backbone.
and in india, where his campaigns failed.
@@Lucasukx Roman artillery would outrange the horse archers ? I seriously doubt that. The Central Asian Turco-Mongol composite bow had a range of over 300 meters and in the 16th century the Ottomans even improved on the design to increase range up to 500 meters but that is a different story. Assuming Roman artillery could even outrange horse archers, it is difficult to hit such a mobile force with artillery. Mongols would simply change their attack direction and loose a big volley of arrows, could the Romans rotate their artillery in time ? Doubtful. Besides the Mongols are not stupid, if they saw the Romans entrenched in a very good defensive position they would bring in their own artillery. There is a gap of at least 1000 years between Romans and Mongols, Mongols used trebuchets, gunpowder, smoke screens... anything you can think of. They were not just a horse archer force. The technological gap is simply too great to make this even a fair fight.
@@huutruong167 I think it would be a massive cold war until one or the other decided peace and mongol empire shatters
@@nelsoncifuentes2896 Exactly! There was no Mogul Empire.
The Mongols defeated large coalitions of Eastern and Central European armies however these probably never exceeded 40,000 men, Rome frequently fielded armies twice that size from the Punic wars through the Severan invasion of Parthia to after Constantine and the beginning of the Later Roman Empire in the 4th century, that's over 500 years.
The Mongol army that invaded Europe was no bigger than 50,000 men, even if it could defeat a Roman army twice its size it would have to do so five or six times over to defeat the whole empire while suffering losses on the way.
well subotai with an expediton of 20 000 men (same general that led the invasion of europe) in 1220s entred georgia and destroyed its field army in two battles first killing 10 000 then the rest in the second battle, after that they trougth some bribes manged to destroy an army of more than 50,000 men composed of coloation of numerous steppe tribes who decided to besige the mongol camps and let them starve subotai then payed the kipchacs to leave with this they attacked and destroyed the army and then cougth up to the kipchans and where killed, later subotai met a coloation of rus more of 80,000 and slaugthered them in the battle of the kalka river ten when he was called back the defeated more kipchacs and volga bulgarians , so the numbers add up subotai destroyed in 2 years in 5 battles so yes its possible that subotai just kills every roman army that comes at him.
@P Ciprian Really that's much later, the Golden Horde some time after the division of the Empire.
@@El-Silver The chronology of the invasion and estimates of the army sizes are disputed, they were likely never more than 40,000 each and the opposition later inflated to make them look good, they were more likely equal.
@@dopeyly China was split between several states and it still took the Mongols sixty years. The largest states probably had as many troops as the Romans under Constantine however most of those were seasonal levies who lacked the training, discipline, and experience of regular forces. The Mongols were much closer to home than when invading Europe.
@@Matt_The_Hugenot Iam not refering to mohi iam referring to the expedition of 1221 of subotai and jebe that was originally sent to capture Sha muhamed
Scipio was a great choice on your part. One of the best generals in Roman history.
Also, a battle hardened soldier is a professional in war. The difference is not only in the mental, but in knowledge. If you ever talked to a veteran and he's told you stories about the battles he's fought in, and all the things done in preparation for waging war, all the little things done here and there, the habits, and little nuances in the way you go about conducting your everyday life, all of it is done with knowledge on survival and fighting that no one that doesn't understand the craft of war-making will ever realize.
There are a lot of factors, but given the track record of the Mongols, I'd have to give them the edge the majority of the time. I feel like terrain would be the main deciding factor, as on open fields the Romans wouldn't have a lot to negate the mobility that gave the Mongols their brutal edge, but on rockier mountain or thick forest terrain, the Mongol's horse's movement would be hindered. Overall in this case, equipment doesn't matter as much as discipline and tactics, especially since they're technologically similar despite the difference in time frames, (give a veteran a rock and make him fight a novice with a knife, odds are the veteran would still win).
Dude spinsor this ain't a total war game or a mount and blade game it's real life why do you think the mongols are bad in forest and rocky terrain the mongols are good in open field but better in forest and terrain threw out history they've been ambushing chines, minchus, japanese, Europeans, arabs, and Russian armies through our history so I dont know if you've been living under a rock or uneducated about mongol tactics but quit with the fantasy and game life about mongols being bad on mountains and forest. Also your wrong dude one rock cannot simply kill a person but hurt them but a knife on the other hand can kill a person and it ain't fear you should give the novice a bow and arrow with a shield and sword and full 15th century steel plate armor and give the pro a rock and peasant clothes now that is fear cuz you said armor dosnt matter dumbo armor was made for a reasone and it's to protect you from dying....
Since the Romans faced the Huns it was about the same as facing the Mongols.
This is actually pretty interesting. In my upcoming historical-fantasy novel series, which is focusing on a hypothetical restoration of the Roman Empire during the 13th century, I actually am planning on the Romans allying with the Mongols, even going so far as to help in the Mongol campaigns in Persia, as well as, in a collaborative novel that my friend and I are planning, on Russia and Poland.
(I say it’s historical fantasy because there is a lot of ancient mythology involved in the storyline.)
Inform me when it's done!
How is the Roman Empire restored?
Random point: *exists*
Metatron: this is actually underappreciated
I'm a bit underwhelmed that strategic mobility/logistics wasn't a factor in this analysis.
Mongols under subutai managed to coordinate battles 100s of kilometers away, split and face armies piecemeal and were basically never ambushed, the entire mongol force was the scouting party stretching for 80 kilometers until an opponent was found,
Mongols would have exploited the unhappiness of the frontier vassals of rome like huns did etc,
Subutai in Italy, Balkans and France would have been like Hannibal Barca all over again only terribly worse and on a huuge scale
tell this to Mamluks
And you know what happened to Hannibal do you?
@@justinianthegreat1444 hannibal didn't have an huge army and didn't have the support of his home country, and the Roman's just spammed armys.
@@stefthorman8548 yeah the same way the mongols will face, they will have shortage and the Romans will spam more armies until they genocide the mongol race
What would the Roman empire look like if it survived to the 15 century
So this video is not actually about Romans vs Mongols, but more of a comparison of how the Romans would have fared, _compared to medieval Europe_ , against the Mongols.
In the end I agree with your conclusion that the unified Roman Empire would have done a better job responding to the Mongol threat than the fragmented Medievals.
So you think rome was better then song dynasty? Which had better technology, education, economics and population?
@@SafavidAfsharid3197
I very literally said what I think, and it had nothing to do with the song dynasty.
"the unified Roman Empire would have done a better job responding to the Mongol threat than the fragmented Medievals."
That's it.
Do you understand that I only compared unified Rome to the fragmented medieval European kingdoms?
The Mongols had the best technology during that time. The best of everything. They would've adapted and received news on how to take down the Roman empire like they did to all the empires they encountered, they conquered them. The Roman empire at that time was also in decline because of wars with nearby empires. Almost all Historians think Western Europe was lucky it was spared because the current Khan died and after that the Mongols had inner power struggles and weren't as interested in expansion.
Europe wasnt spared because ogadei's death, little fan boy.
Not daring Julius Caesar’s time. Julius Caesar and Pompey would conquer the Mongols in submission and crucified all the mongols. And parade Genghis Khan in chains.
@@thunderdogs7238 Their armies were puny and slow, they would've gotten slaughtered.
Righteous1 Roman armies puny?!? They fielded upwards of 30,000 men multiple times in different campaigns. At its peak the legions numbered 50 with 5,000 men a piece. That's a professional army of 250,000 men. It is anything but puny.
I don’t think Mongols could conquer the west. Even they were successfully defeated by Hungarians when they invaded Europe again.
I was under the impression that the expedition of the mongol horde to the west, was to ensure the stability of trading of the silk road, imposing a "pax mongolica" over western asia.
Maybe the mongol would have not go all the way to conquer Europe against a good trading partner like the Roman Empire. Surely war will serve as a meaning to impose a hierarcy: in witch the mongol would have the more profit over the romans.
Probably, in the field of war operations, the mongol will have the upperhand over the roman: for been more keen to pulder tattics and been organized enought to be able to plunge in crisis the eastern provinces of the empire, and lure in several ambushes, the roman army sent to deal with them.
But the Roman will have the advantage of the Mediterranean: they will be able to deploy troops, supplies, and ambassadeurs fast enought to mitigate and stop the mongols operatives.
Of course it will more complicated than that.
Btw thanks for the video.
Egypt and anatolia would more than likely be lost but main europe would endure until the mongols split and those areas reclaimed
Mongols: march on Rome!
Romans: hey! Only romans are allowed to do that.
I really want to know something about African weapons, shields and who they fought against in history
Since you're looking at the comments so I just wanted to say you're the best :)
A big component of the Roman Army in this case would have been the Scorpio: Caesar wanted to give 2 Scorpios per century for his campaign against Partia, and Trajan actually did it in his. These Scorpios would demolish the Mongol horse archers
why people asume mongols only had cavalry? they had siege weapons too
Why do people underestimate the difficulty fighting an ever moving opponent? Huge component would be battlefield at hand and how many shots those scorpios would get on a thundering horse archers in the least... a scorpio takes a predictably moving target not a archer on horseback, flinging missiles back at you the moment they get in range. Even Roman's formations are susceptible to hit and move tactics. Thats not even taking into account for most of these hordes were highly mobile and recouped by drinking the milk from their purposefully brought along mares, as well as having multiple horses available to switch out and disperse the workload. Meaning the Mongols or Huns would've been fit to fight more often versus the Romans. If the Roman's forced the opponent to have to sack a town or city, ofcourse the Roman's would then have the edge.
Short story short, try and fire on a moving target and you will see how auxiliary archers with defensive measures would be the only hope for the Romans in anything near an open field.
The Mongols had their own siege equipment and field artillery too. Also, the ancient armies of what is now China had as much if not more field artillery than the Romans. If the medieval Song Dynasty copied the ancient armies with crossbow and field artillery, then they would also have more field artillery than the Romans. The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China talks about at least 248 chariots with different types of mounted field artillery crossbows for every army of 10,000 soldiers. That surpasses a Roman legion with 1-2 scorpions per century (50-100 scorpion field artillery per 2 legions of 10,000 men): "Thirty six Large Yellow Chariots equipped with strong crossbows....this type of chariot can be used to attack solid formations and defeat strong enemies. Seventy two Wuyi chariots with large shields and halberds are guarded by warriors holding crossbows, spears, and halberds on both sides. The height of the wheel is 5 feet. The crossbows fire continuous arrows. They are used to attack solid formations and defeat strong enemies. One hundred and forty Tiyi chariots with small shields are equipped with winch powered crossbows to fire continuous arrows. -The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China." www.google.com/books/edition/The_Seven_Military_Classics_of_Ancient_C/u
The Chu Yen records of the Han Dynasty says there was ~537,000 crossbows according to the armory list. The records also say that while the plurality of crossbows (43.8%) were 6 stone (387 lbs or 176 kg), 5.5% of crossbows were Great Yellow Crossbows and were 10 stones and above (645 lbs draw and above, or 293 kg and above). If we assume that the 537,000 crossbows in the armory list referred to all types of crossbows, and 5.5% of these were field artillery crossbows, then we conclude there were 26,850 field artillery crossbows because: 537,000 x 5.5% = 26,850 crossbows. So throughout the major armories the record was referring to, there were 26,850 light field artillery crossbows with 293 kilograms of draw weight and more with long powerstrokes. And if you think 10+ stones (645+ lbs/293+kg) is weak, read about their extremely long powerstroke in a book by Mike Loades: "It took around 20 inches to draw a Chinese crossbow string from its resting position to hook it behind the trigger catch. By contrast, on a European crossbow the powerstroke was typically only 4-5 inches. In part this longer power-stroke was made possible by the design of the Chinese lock, allowing it to locate at the tail-end of the tiller. The long horizontal lever on European crossbows necessitated placing the string-catch much further forward." (p. 9-10 The Crossbow -Mike Loades).
This means that a 400 lb (181kg) crossbow with a 18 inch is roughly equivalent to a 1200 lb (544 kg) crossbow with a 6 inch powerstroke from the Middle Ages. A 645lbs/393 kg draw with that 18 inch powerstroke would be like a 1935lbs/878 kg draw weight crossbow with a 6 inch powerstroke.
Being Italian he is very pro Roman. If you look at the Romano-Parthian wars they were either terrible losses or stalemates. The best Rome could do was to get the capital and back off afterward. The Mongols are Parthians with better tactics, troops, discipline, technology and leadership. By the time of Mongol -European conflict the Roman Empire was severely at a disadvantage due to the control over the empire and large scale confederation.
When given a choice of terrain, Romans would deliberately choose terrain that was advantageous to the enemy, to give them a false sense of security.
Of course, this strategy didn't work out well for Crassus-- if "strategy" is a term that can be applied in his case.
La cosa che Adoro dei Romani, era la loro adattabilità alle situazioni. Trovare soluzioni contro un nuovo nemico.
Organizzazione, professionismo, esperienza.
Sicuramente uno scenario interessante questo da entrambe le parti.
bel video Raf. continua cosi.
Now this is one fight that the show "Deadliest Warrior" had totally missed and should've done before it went off the air. Also, Mongols (either from Atilla's era or Ghengis Khan's era) vs feudal Japanese samurai's would've been an equally interesting one to analyze.
If you’re reading this: may the force be with you
Thanks, may the force serve you well! 😼
Take a seat, Young Skywalker.
May the force be with us all
@@metatronyt yes May the force gyda's into battle against our enemies
Yes, Lord Vader!
Wouldn't it be similar to The Huns vs The Roman Empire?
Depends on which era you want The Roman Empire to be. If it was during the time of the Huns, The Western Roman Empire would be quickly defeated while the Eastern Roman Empire would be able to give a good fight. If it was during the time when the Roman Empire was its peak then they would fail initially but would likely win in the long run.
A force of Roman Legionary infantry supported by Mongol cavalry though. I wonder what they would be like.
Throw in Sassanid Cataphracts and Timurid War Elephants and that's just game over man, game over.
They would need translators.
Op op !. Need nerf!!!
That versus Spanish Tercio. Who would win?
normies: Horse Archers are immensely powerful and almost undefeatable.
actual intellectuals: slingers go SLING SLING SLING
Every range unit deployed in some kind of fortified position is a hard counter to every kind of lightly armored horsemen.
@@lars9925 especially if the horses are unarmored.
damn this kind of comments are so stupid and are in every video of youtube
one: bla bla bla
two: bla bla bla
why some people need to put this shit, I will never understand
Unless they face fortifications or heavy cavalry.
Or mountains.
Or surprise attacks from the sea or across a river. or ambushes. or fleets. or large shields on heavy infantry. or bad luck.
louis pellissier ikr
Thanx for the thoughtful & well-reasoned analysis of what, until now, has probably been a poorly explored subject!
Dude I love your content but..ma boi! You need to improove your audio quality. I can't put my finger on what the problem is but it just sounds muffy and bad.
I think its the layout of his rooms that produce a mild echo which makes it sound strange.
Oh, and I had just finished watching an Age of Empires video. Smooth transition indeed
I believe that the Roman War chariot should have been discussed as they were rather effective at mounted troops.
War carriages are slow and heavy. Mongolian Horse archers are light and fast. Unless the Mongol general tells his troops to charge head on into the war carriages, the men in those war carriages will get hit with thousands of arrows without inflicting a single casualty to any Mongol.
Chariots were mostly used because mounted combat on horseback was difficult in the pre saddle and stirrup world. It's why once these were invented chariots started to fall out of fashion.
I think what is more important is the missile weaponry. Since its pretty commonly accepted foot archers are better than mounted archers when fighting each other and the Romans had alot of foot archers. And that's not mentioning that everyone roman lectionary carried throwing spears while most medieval infantry did not.
Unless it is by some miracle a repeat of Carrhae which was pretty exceptional circumstances since the parthians only won because they were fighting an offensive roman army who hadn't established proper logistics and basically nobody knew where Crassus was and the Parthians by coincidence were able to keep their horse archers constantly supplied with arrows. Had they ran out the battle would've likely ended with a roman victory. Similarly had Caesar not been assassinated Parthia might have been incorporated into the Roman Empire.
It's also worth saying the Romans were pretty well adapted to fighting horse archers societies unlike most people the Mongols fought against. Caltrops being a very common weapon used against horse archers. Can't exactly keep moving if your horse is in constant pain and that just makes you and your horse an easier target for foot archers.
Also worth saying that nomadic horse societies rely on flat open plains to survive which leaves very little options for the Mongols to survive in europe for long. It's why the Scythians, Huns, Avars, Magyars and Cumans all eventually settled in Pannonia since Europe is mostly Woods and Hills and cannot sustain a large nomadic population. The Huns increasingly had to rely on their Germanic allies the further west they went.
Romans would ask help from Asterix and Obelix, and they would drink magic potion and play football with Mongols xD
VIDEO SUGGESTION: If you were to piece together all of the best helmets, breastplates and such from history into one suit of full plate armor, what would that suit of armor be like? What items would you choose and why? How likely is it that such an armor was used by someone in history? I'd love to know your opinion on the matter and I'm sure it would make for a fun video both for you to make and for all of us to watch.
This is assuming that said suit of armor isn't an actual matching set from history.
The best melee helmet was the typical Roman helmet of the 2nd century. It's probably the best helmet design ever invented for all around protection while retaining features that did not cause tunnel vision and hearing loss. Lorica segmentata was probably the best body armor as well, with the helmet designed to augment the pteras by deflecting blows to the shoulders and missing the neck completely. The scutum allowed only th ehhelmet to be visible tothe enemy, thus requiring a slashing blow to have any effectiveness, since the shield hid almost every other part of the legionary from view. The Romans knew that a slashing motion is wasteful of energy and requires a follow though, which in turn, results ina slightly off balanced opponent. That moment is the thrusting moment, which is much faster and much more accurate than a slash.
So, despite all the other bits and pieces throughout history, the Roman panoply remains extremely viable. The demise of lorica segmentata was not because it was out dated by technology. It was because it was maintenance intensive, and required lots of iron ribbon. I suspect that though the decades and centuries, it was passed on to other soldiers who made repairs as bestthey could, unitl the iron ribbon became too hard to get in the field and local chain mail became once more common. I also suspect that not all chain mail was very good quality.
Excellent analysis and a good sense of history, too. Thank you for sharing this most interesting and informative video with us. I think what separates your analysis from so many others that I have seen is 1) your inclusion of real history in terms of nation states up front for context, 2) your clear analysis of the actual needs of an army, not just "beans and bullets," and 3) how you stay away from speculative fiction disguised as fact, and that you tend to call out such speculation (there was no united Europe, Italy was not a country, you discuss how Romans adapt to their enemies but you did not try to predict how they would adapt, etc.). Well done, sir, and thank you.
Very similar military reaction of the Chinese, heavy infantry and more ranged attacker.
But Chinese have less professionalized soldiers(except small amount that direct serve the general), more restriction on generals
I have been playing Rise of Kingdoms for almost a year! It is one of the best app games that I have ever played. I am so glad that they sponsored you!
The Romans at the height of their power had a highly adaptable military force. They learned from their defeats and created new strategies to counter their enemies. So yeah they could probably have stopped the Mongols.
Plus, how would the Romans handle the Mongol thunder crash bomb, which was a proto-version of a hand grenade, they used in their invasions of the 13th century.
According to my horse archer army in M&B2 Mongols defeat everything lmao
Can they defeat a spear wall formations
@@ivokonstantinidis9438 yes they literally run circles around them
warband khergits were pretty fucking awful though ngl
BlackWolf even if they can’t defeat them, once they’re out of ammo they can simply retreat and attack again next turn
turn on a realistic armour mod and that will change.
damn it let me relaunch Attila Total War. Been ages but you HAD to make me go back to that title now.
@Apathetic Apparition i saw 1212! Just downloaded it. Gonna play in a bit. Been messing around with WH2 mostly and R2. Will be a good change of pace though!
the topic is too fanservice, there are centuries between Romans and Mongols. Heavy infantry with short swords against mass cavalry is nonsense
I usually think of the Mongols as just another series of nomadic Steppe invaders, alongside the Huns, the White Huns, the Kushans, the Turkic invaders, Golden Horde etc.
ua-cam.com/video/Dn7U2Mux9Hs/v-deo.html
The Huns, under Atilla's leadership, devastate the Roman Empire/s, so the Mongols, using more modernised battle tactics and technologies, due to being a far later military force, would almost certainly have fared better.
What mass cavalry? Mongols deployed siege engines, horse archers, heavy cavalry, light-heavy infantry from their vassals from Korea to Georgia. They operated almost similarly to the Romans in their utilization of conquered people's. The only main difference between them is their origin as light horse archers and the technological gap in metallurgy. Other than that, it's only politics that can truly tell the battle.
@Michael Terrell II indeed. But the Romans were also Predominantly Italian Infantry. And do bear in mind that mounted archers are near useless against professional soldiers as their bows are less accurate compared to dismounted bowmen. Romans before the 3rd century would spit accurately at the Mongols as they aimed with unfavorable results. Mongols can be tricky to fight with 3rd century onwards or early maniple army Roman legions but imperial era Roman armies would totally crush the Mongols should they ever consider facing them in open battle. The Mongols only won when they surprised an enemy in the first place.
And do spell bulk correctly next time. Autocorrect exists in most phones btw.
Romans did fight sassanids (and Parthians too really, but their record wasn't very....just lets pay our respect to crassus. )
I'd think it would be a fair contest really.
@@milindgaonkar2746 there's more commanders who fought partians, and many successfully.
Awesome as always metatron :)
I think the Romans would likely use more Spears than they did before.
Some european kingdoms did unite during the mongol invasion. Mongols where sometimes beaten by medieval europes united armies. (Not all of europe united but parts)
The Holy Roman Empire and the Polish Kingdom united at the Battle of Legnica 1241 for example.
Polish Duchies didn't really receive any substantial support from the HRE. But Mongols were a factor in reuniting the Kingdom of Poland.
@Catch_Me_If_You_Can
Depends how you define the word spear, I didn´t mean throwing spears. Pikes are a type of spear in my understanding, any stick with a spike at the end is some kind of spear for me in that regards. I don´t think that the pike would have been usefull, because mongol riders didn´t charge into closed lines, the pike was reinvented in the late middle ages to prevent heavy cavalry charges, the mongols didn´t really have heavy cavalry. Pikes would have been not that usefull. They are unwieldy in close combat, I think the classical spear with around 2 and a half meters length, some call them lances would suit this circumstance fairly good.
Babes!!! What an awesome video! 🤍 I loved it!
Thank you pie I'm glad you liked It
Who would win?
A profesional army
Or
Some Yuve Yuve Yu boys on horse
Or on motorcycles :thonking:
Yuve Yuve Yu boys
The Yuve Yuve yu boy on horse would slaughter those man wearing dresses.
Well, in a way Romans vs Mongols did happen as the Mongols fought the Latin Empire which was a part of the broken Eastern Roman Empire. I would have liked to see Byzantines/Eastern Rome vs Mongols tackled, as I think that gives a good indication of how an army with institutionalized knowledge of logistics and tactics and with a direct line to the classical Roman armies would fare against them, and they were contemporaries.
In fact what happened when the Eastern Romans found the Mongols would probably be what would happen if classical Rome met them: they would pay them to get them to stop being a nuisance, provided they had the economical capacity to do so.
I say it can go either way, if the Romans caught up quickly with the tech the Mongols already have like stirrups, crossbows, & new siege weapons. Now lets say the Roman Empire survived to what would've the medieval period and obtained the same level of medieval technology by around the time the Mongols invaded. Roman legions w/ various armour styles from light to heavy, knowledge of medieval & ancient warfare & strategies collaborated together (example: Imagine Roman Cavalry in full plate charging Mongolian horsemen w/ lance in hand, utilizing newer & bigger siege weapons & utilizing crossbows, their "foot" better armed & protected). So in short the Romans military still maintained everything from warfare, strategy & weapons & also took in everything medieval to their empire combining the 2 making them more powerful.
If Mongols think they can terrorize Romans w/ their methods, you would definitely see Romans retaliate back w/ their methods. Crucifying captured Mongols
ua-cam.com/video/4bvJKJgESP4/v-deo.html
It will be impossible to happen since the Romans helped the Mongols to conquer Middle East. For short, Byzantines are considered Romans by the way.
@@brandonkinzjuliusjaugan7601 Byzanties paid tribute to the Golden horde btw
@@sergelengerelmaa2450 tell this to Mamluks
Crassus and his legions were destroyed by the Parthians, who used similar attacks to those of the Mongols- horse mounted archery, feigned retreats, etc. So I would put my money on the Mongols. Especially if Subotai and Jebbe were in Command.
To all those who say "Mongols were unstoppable" look on the siege of Esztergom.
Since their logistic to sustain their armies at the front was based on pillaging villages and taking from there food resources, it would have been sufficient to create some kind of no man's land on the borders and raise fortified villages on the inside (for food production) while creating small hearth fortifications on the borders capable to protect infantry from the attacks of the enemy formations.
Primo, the Siege of Esztergom was conducted by Ottomans, not Mongols. Secundo, No mans' lands were ultimately beneficial to Mongols/Tatars, not their adversaries while lines of fortifications proved to be unreliable in stoping their raids. Just look up the history of the Crimean Khanate. Russians were trying to protect themselves by building chains of fortified posts, similar to what you're describing.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 Ottomans in 1241? Hardly
That's the second siege of Esztergom carried on by Süleyman I.
I was talking about the one carried by Batu Khan which did not ended well for the Mongols.
In the Rus they used great fortifications, I was talking more like lines of trenches going deep in the border from which launch rapid guerrilla attacks.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 and they succeed
@@kamilszadkowski8864 No man's land was successful in the posterior invasions of Hungary
@@marcoalimandi6013
They didn't have Chinese Engineers nor the leadership of Subutai and Genghis then.
The Romans did meet the Mongols.. in fact they were allies because they had common enemies (not the Mongols of Genghis Khan of course, I meant the golden horde )
Yes, eastern roman empire
He talks about united roman empire
Uploaded: 52 seconds ago.
Already 3 comments before me.
I am not a soldier, so I only make hypothesis. Roman shield and "loricae" in the testudo formation, that was invented against arrows, could have resisted the shower of arrows and the testudo itself, with the tickness of pilum aligned, would have prevented a Mongol cavalry attack aimed to breakthrough. But a legion could not remain in testudo formation forever, sooner or later they would have been forced to move and in this case the superior mobility of Mongols would be a very important factor.
Perhaps I am biassed since I am descended from Temujin through my mother's mother's family; but I think the Romans would have had a very hard time fighting against the Mongols. I agree, they would have done better than the European armies which the Mongols did face historically, but the tactics the Mongols used were very different from what the Romans were used to, and also, the Mongols were used to adapting their tactics on the fly to meet an evolving situation. I still think the Mongols would have won. The only reason they didn't conquer all the way to the Atlantic Ocean was that they were called back because of the death of Ogodai.to select the new khan. I have spent a lot of time studying the history of the Mongols, and also of the Greeks and Romans. I read both Greek and Latin. Sadly I do not read Mongolian, so I must rely on translations. You may find the book The Secret History Of The Mongols worth reading, as well as Genghis Khan, Emperor Of All Men by Harold Lamb. Finally, just for fun, watch this, ua-cam.com/video/pD1gDSao1eA/v-deo.html
Always the same myth.
Not true: The only reason they didn't conquer all the way to the Atlantic Ocean was that they were called back because of the death of Ogodai.to select the new khan.
Mongols withdrew without know anything about khan's death, simply they had no plans to conquer europe. Just read the english wikipedia and the muslim source of mongol withdraw.
@@juanbelmonte8920 Wikipedia, forsooth! If you rely on that source, then you are a fool. Read the other sources not written by Eurocentric apologists. They DID know about the Khan's death. They had the finest communications network in the world, the Yam.
www.warriorsandlegends.com/mongol-warriors/mongol-war-communications/
You're obviously just a butt hurt Euro, still smarting because my ancestors kicked your ass.
@@juanbelmonte8920 Wikipedia really?? The man gave u all proper references and yours from wiki? U joking right?
@@powellmountainmike8853 Wikipedia arent just opinions, it cites a primary source:
"Rashid Al-Din, a historian of the Mongol Ilkhanate, explicitly states in the Ilkhanate's official histories that the Mongols were not even aware of Ogedei's death when they began their withdrawal.[61] Rashid Al-Din, writing under the auspices of the Mongol Empire, had access to the official Mongol chronicle when compiling his history (Altan Debter). "
Hence no, mongols dont withdrew because dead of nobody, in fact they spend a entire year on campaigns on Turkey, and repressing the cuman revolt.
By the way, without Subodai the second invasion of Hungary was totally crushed.
PD: I'm very glad Mongolia is today a hole of misery (LOL).
@@syauqiasraf4509 Altan Debter is a primary source from as valid as any other.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altan_Debter
Speaking of "green vs seasoned" warriors, I remember hearing from a US Army Ranger not too long ago, about his first deployment to Iraq during the GWOT. American Rangers (from the 75th Ranger Regiment) are considered elite due to their intense selection and training, as well as their high degree of motivation. However, he said that when he conducted his first night raid in support of CAG (often referred to as Delta Force or other names), the gunfire, explosions, and incoming rounds caused sensory overload and he found himself with tunnel vision and being almost immobilized by it all. He said, however, that when he saw the Delta guys, shooting and advancing into enemy fire as if it was all just a training simulation, he realized just how important experience and acclamation was in a firefight. By the end of his first deployment, he too had been in dozens of firefights and had adjusted to the calamity of combat.
We have to look at some historical facts.Alexanders army ,defeated theScythians horse warriors.they used almost the same tactics as the Mongols.also the Greek phalanx defeated the Persian Cavalry many times.at the time of Mongols the infantry of their opponents was very weak .
Steel wins battles, gold wins wars.
I think the Mongols would just sit back and wait for the right moment to strike like if rome was split into two and under constant threat of other raiding cultures in mean time keep themselves occupied by raiding other places
Spot on.
@Manuel Sacha the Mongols are dangerous but they aren't dumb
@Manuel Sacha it's not like it matters because at the hight of the Roman empire the Mongols were still split into many tribes with many leaders
@Manuel Sacha I didn't
What if they just also wait patiently like what happened with Hannibal.
One very important factor gained with Battle-Hardened Troops in the Time periods where Armies Fought primarily in “Formations/ Ranks & Columns of Soldiers facing off”. The maneuvering would be much more precise & responsive to Orders from the Commanders. Because, Those Battle hardened/ Battle experienced individuals & lower ranking Leaders would be much more aware of their situation and they would be more prepared & organized. As well as sort of even anticipating the orders which were likely to come from the Commander to carry out particular formation maneuvers and actions. Because they would’ve likely encountered similar situations & conditions and know what to expect the Commanders to do. And perhaps even take the initiative with smaller actions in preparation, Which could have prevented the necessity of some actions, Or just enable that larger actions & maneuver ordered by the General to be more effective &/or successful.
Hummmm, I'm having an obsession lastly with Romans and Mongols....
Metatron is spying me????
😹😹😹😹
I actually can't stop thinking about the only thing that seemed to save medieval Europe from Mongols at the Mongolian Raid, the stone rampants, I think that Romans could do very well against Mongols, I consider it a tie, since both parties were very effective in their own ways, and it would be a very epic Battle to see XD
@Emperor Louis The Retard hello
Yay, Megatron is back.
Cough* battle of carrae(idk if i spelled it correctly)
Carrhae
You've got to remember though that after that battle the Romans won the vast majority of their fights against the Parthians
and that the parthians ultimatly used cataphracts to actually win the fight, because the horsearchers failed to do that, for a couple of DAYS.
I said it as a joke.i dont really care which faction is stronger, although i like mongols and theyre style of fighting and equipment is particular, thats why im biased(and ancestral ties, im tatar btw).in the end all are just states, they are not perfect and all have theyre goods and bads
@@josepharnfield7324 but most of other battles Roman won were against Parthian infantry.
Noble one, thanks for all of the education over the years.
My pleasure
if Huns Attila didn’t died suddenly. There was no more Roman Empire.
And the Huns were using typical mongolian tactics, just less effektive
Well it’s much easier to destroy an already-crumbling empire compared to destroying an empire at its peak. Like the Roman Empire in 100 ad or so
Flavius Aetius actually stopped the momentum of the Huns at the Battle of Chalons where they withdrew from Gaul.
I wish my dad was alive today (1960-2008). He would've LOVED this video, along with the rest of your content, as much as I do
Mongols all day long. Mobility, and the composite recurve bow.
Always a pleasure to see your "what if"...
Subatai would hsve owned scipio
The Mongols had gunpowder weapons, they didn't just use mounted archers and cavalry.
How the Romans would do with the Mongols can be seen in how the Romans did against the Parthians. Initially overconfident then bewildered, as Crassus was. Then they'd roll over them.
Good analysis mate, thanks for giving us an accurate and education video.
Romans vs huns, Byzantines vs turks, we know who won from those lol
Yeah the Romans, and the Byzantines where weakened by the time of the Turks.
Thanks for the video! Me likey likey. You make interesting points!
Hmmm, interesting
Very cool sword aswell
Very good analysis.
I have a question for you as an Italian. Do you (and the Italian people) see yourself as the heir and successor of the Roman Empire?
If so, do you see the Italian people as the heir and successor of the Byzantine Empire as well? (Because the Byzantine Empire is a direct continuation of the Roman Empire)
What's the point of this question?
@@SonsOfLorgar Intriguing to know with the Italian people (and owner of this UA-cam channel) see themselves as successors and heirs of the Roman Empire or for whom the Roman Empire was a culture and empire that ruled Italy and died like many others who ruled Italy or parts of Italy
@@Vigoda.d Italian people generally see themselves as heir of the Roman Empire and the original Roman ethnicity and culture, even if we know that Italy is not the successor of Rome we still consider ourselves as people as the successor of the Roman people. That is probably one of the reasons Metatron said: "I, of cuorse chose the Romans" when sponsoring the game, we can't help but feel somehow proud and having a strong liking towards the Romans
@@SonsOfLorgar What's the point of your question?
I think that Italians feel like heir of roman empire, and I also think that because when byzantine empire started to fell down, empire was only ruled by Greeks so Greek nationalists claim byzantine empire as greek
Oof this is such a hard question to answer. I think time period would make a huge difference. Cause the Mongols had a habit of adapting armour, weapons, and even peoples. Anouther thing worth considering is if any European people, say the Germanic, would join or resist the Mongols. I feel that would make such a huge difference.