Parthians and Romans versus the Mongols

Esopo

Banned
The Streltsy were every bit as professional as the Janissaries, perhaps more so, not being religious brotherhoods. The Muscovite bureaucracy was working absolute wonders given how tiny it was. The Russians, even with the relative poverty of the country and the hostile neighborhood, were in fact so organised they could build fort lines aross hundreds of miles, in mere years. You're basically out to lunch on this one.

Building forts =/= burocratic state/army.

The best counter to horse archers is either forts or horse archers of your own. Which all of their opponents had aplenty. This is ridiculous arrogance, to assume that the countries that BORDERED the nomads for centuries and knew the game were less mentally prepared than the Romans.

In this scenario, we are talking of a combined force (roman-parthia) which had horse archers, superb engineering/forts, professional infantry trained and experienced against heavy and archer cavalry

It was completely dominated by aristocratic families and factional politics! Muscovite Russia had like 100x more meritocracy than Republican Rome. In fact, Imperial Rome had more meritocracy than the Republic.

First, we are not talking of republican rome; second, the meritocracy in the ranks of an army is something different from the high officiality of the army.




The Parthians are just inferior say, Kushans, but the Sassanids are the first Medieval army. Guess who kicked Roman ass all over Syria more?

You didnt answer. Why the partians didnt do what you say the mongold would have easily did to the romans?
And as i have explained, sassanids =/= parthians and sassanids =/= horse archer army.




Then explain to me how Rus (and by extension Lithuania) repeatedly colonised the Steppe within short time periods despite massive invasions (expansion periods: 900-1050s, 1130-1230s, 1380-1480s, 1500-1700s) and the Romans NEVER DID.


It has nothing to do with the issue we are talking about.
 
Anyway, lets see, how were the song or polish armies more advanced in warfare methods than the romans and the parthians? apart for the stirrup obviously.
Uh, guns. Duh. Seriously, you really think all they had were firecrackers? Guns represent a serious advantage over javelins and whatever else the Romans have. That I have to actually say this is really sad.
 
*returns to thread, sees Esopo and Snake both turn up and say the opposite thing*

A few things:

-This is an ASB Scenario where there is no gunpowder schock.

-The legions specified were those of the Republic's Civil Wars, which would have included many veterans of the Gallic Wars (among other wars of the Late Republic), as well as of course the civil wars themselves. The quality of officers and men alike is therefore likely to be very high. Perhaps more importantly, unless Julius Caesar dies on the field, the dispatches forever immortalised as "The Mongol Wars" are going to make excellent reading.

-I notice that actual Roman tactics against horse archers, e.g. those used by Corbulo, are being ignored. Of course, these were only devised after the Romans had previously faced the Parthians in a sense of other than "and no one from Crassus' ambush lived to tell the tale." As the Parthians are this time on the Romans' side, however, they can give the Roman generals some friendly advice.

-I remember reading somewhere on this site (probably) that, whilst theoretically Mongol bows had a long range, in practice mounted archery involved getting very close to the enemy; shooting from the saddle is a difficult business. And whilst it isn't explicitly mentioned whether the Romans have their ballistae or not, if we are to assume that they get the normal equipment that every Legion has, the Romans would get their hands on a fair number of artillery pieces. These could help counter the Mongol archery advantage.
 
Last edited:

Esopo

Banned

As you said, it all depends on cohordination with the parthians.
That said, someone should explain me why the romans werent defeated from the parthians if they dont have any counter to a combined heavy cavalry/horse archer army.
 

Esopo

Banned
Uh, guns. Duh. Seriously, you really think all they had were firecrackers? Guns represent a serious advantage over javelins and whatever else the Romans have. That I have to actually say this is really sad.

Europeans during mongol invasions didnt have guns. About the song, if they had, their guns didnt save them from the mongols, right?
 
As you said, it all depends on cohordination with the parthians.
That said, someone should explain me why the romans werent defeated from the parthians if they dont have any counter to a combined heavy cavalry/horse archer army.

I did list the counters; They used a combination of cavalry and long-range slingers to deter Parthian horse archers and to cover their advance, which depended on closing with the inferior Parthian infantry as quickly as possible and also in forcing the Parthian heavy cavalry using the same tactics to close into battle with the Roman foot. This will be significantly more difficult with the Mongols, who produced heavy cavalry and horse archers which were far superior in organization, training, and technology to any Parthian force. In addition, bow technology advances neutralize the effectiveness of the sling as an effective anti-cavalry weapon.

Europeans during mongol invasions didnt have guns. About the song, if they had, their guns didnt save them from the mongols, right?

The Song also had favorable terrain, a population base of millions, an army which far outnumbered the Mongol one, and at least equal technology. This does not bode well for the Romans fighting on an open plain with very limited reserves of high quality men, no numerical advantage, and technological backwardness.
 

Esopo

Banned
The Song also had favorable terrain, a population base of millions, an army which far outnumbered the Mongol one, and at least equal technology. This does not bode well for the Romans fighting on an open plain with very limited reserves of high quality men, no numerical advantage, and technological backwardness.

Are we talking of a roman army in the middle of the steppes or of a mongol invasion of both parthia and rome?
 
As you said, it all depends on cohordination with the parthians.
That said, someone should explain me why the romans werent defeated from the parthians if they dont have any counter to a combined heavy cavalry/horse archer army.

Uh, this thread was (originally) talking about Roman soldiers from the Civil War period.

And because the opening post specified an open plain, siege capabilities don't really come into play either.

How about after the civil war between Gaius Iulus Casear, and Popmey Mangus?

Which I'm pretty sure is before the Romans started adapting.
 

Esopo

Banned
Uh, this thread was (originally) talking about Roman soldiers from the Civil War period.

And because the opening post specified an open plain, siege capabilities don't really come into play either.

In this case, rome/parthia will lose. An army which lost at carrhae wont endure against mongols.
 
OP said:
Hello. I wast wondering if 25000 Roman Legionarries along with the same amount of Parthian Cataphracts would be able to beat 50000 Mongols on an open plain. Does anyone have any idea? And who would win in a total war between the two sides if PArthia and Rome were neighbors and Mongolia a similar distance from Rome as Carthiga was (ROman's opponet in the Punic Wars, can't spell)

1. He is asking the Romans to fight in inferior numbers vs. Mongols, on an open plain. In that given battle, if the Parthians don't stay strong, the allies are toast.

2. The second part is more interesting. On one hand, Parthia/Sassania was vulnerable because Iraq was both valuable and vulnerable to the kind of warfare Rome was good at. Mongolia isn't.

On the other hand, as close as Carthage is pretty darn close. Mongols might be forced right off their home grounds if things go somewhat right for Rome.

Within the context of the OP, I think there is no question. Mongols win. As for the rest of the discussion, the idea that the late Roman army didn't melt down in front of horse archers as a concept is pretty obvious, but I think it's also pretty silly to imagine that medieval armies didn't know what horse archers were or how to deal with them. They did, and it wasn't enough.

Would what the Romans have be enough? Maybe. If the Mongols stood and fought over something really valuable like Ctesiphon, or decided to go into major siege warfare on the offensive, later Roman organisation could give them a few surprises.
 
As for part 2, the best chance for the Romans is if the Mongols, like the Carthaginians, have a similarly broad expanse of ocean between them and the enemy. Roman seamanship wasn't great, but they usually had plenty of good Friends and Allies to call upon, and could eventually adapt.

The alternative relies on the Romans digging in and grinding the Mongols down. Physically it won't be impossible for the Romans to hold out, but it would require lucky ballista bolts, diseases and assassins to take out the Khan before the Mongols overrun too much of the Empire. Unless this is also the age of the Republic in the Civil War, in which case the Mongols could back one faction against the other. The thought of Julius Caesar teeming up with Genghis Khan to take on all comers has a sort of pleasing ring to it.
 
As for part 2, the best chance for the Romans is if the Mongols, like the Carthaginians, have a similarly broad expanse of ocean between them and the enemy. Roman seamanship wasn't great, but they usually had plenty of good Friends and Allies to call upon, and could eventually adapt.

The alternative relies on the Romans digging in and grinding the Mongols down. Physically it won't be impossible for the Romans to hold out, but it would require lucky ballista bolts, diseases and assassins to take out the Khan before the Mongols overrun too much of the Empire. Unless this is also the age of the Republic in the Civil War, in which case the Mongols could back one faction against the other. The thought of Julius Caesar teeming up with Genghis Khan to take on all comers has a sort of pleasing ring to it.

I would like to Thank RGB and Awilla the Hun for finally being constructive. Especially you RGB. I missed a few days, and just finished reading the entire thread. Many of the posters were acting like school children. YOu two were the only two (most of the time) who act like adults. Thank you

1. He is asking the Romans to fight in inferior numbers vs. Mongols, on an open plain. In that given battle, if the Parthians don't stay strong, the allies are toast.

2. The second part is more interesting. On one hand, Parthia/Sassania was vulnerable because Iraq was both valuable and vulnerable to the kind of warfare Rome was good at. Mongolia isn't.

On the other hand, as close as Carthage is pretty darn close. Mongols might be forced right off their home grounds if things go somewhat right for Rome.

Within the context of the OP, I think there is no question. Mongols win. As for the rest of the discussion, the idea that the late Roman army didn't melt down in front of horse archers as a concept is pretty obvious, but I think it's also pretty silly to imagine that medieval armies didn't know what horse archers were or how to deal with them. They did, and it wasn't enough.

Would what the Romans have be enough? Maybe. If the Mongols stood and fought over something really valuable like Ctesiphon, or decided to go into major siege warfare on the offensive, later Roman organisation could give them a few surprises.
 
Top