zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.

Learn More · Sign-up Now
Welcome to Haven Of Wiidom. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


Pages: (2) [1] 2  ( Go to first unread post )

 Mongol Empire v.s The Roman Empire
super_wolverine_Man
Posted: Mar 17 2008, 01:57 PM


Head Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 7,680
Member No.: 3
Joined: 9-January 08



alright Wingman this is for you, If these two, Empire's met on neutral territory who would come out the victor


--------------------

Points:

"The first shot rang out from somewhere and I heard a bullet wiz by my face. With my pump action shotgun ready, I shoot the first fool I see."

Grano's so gangster.
Top
boston_celtics
Posted: Mar 18 2008, 12:43 AM


The Bobby Fischer of the CBUB


Group: Members
Posts: 233
Member No.: 22
Joined: 14-January 08



Fools! You dare challenge the great khan? His empire strecthes from the southern tip of china, to the freezing cold of Siberia, to the mountains of Korea, the spice fields of India and the gates of Vienna! He mastered the arts of gun powder, and the Mongol cavalry cannot be stopped by any foe! His land occupies half of the worlds population! The Great Khan wins!


--------------------
"History does nothing; it does not possess immense riches, it does not fight battles. It is men, real, living, who do all this."

-Karl Marx

Two words are enough!

BEAT L.A.
Top
Wingman
Posted: Mar 18 2008, 12:52 PM


I'm better than you. That's all I know.


Group: Admin
Posts: 2,439
Member No.: 14
Joined: 11-January 08



Thanks man, you rock!! *rubs hands together* Alright. The Romans were far better leaders, administrators, rulers, and basically could create, govern, and keep together a stable, working empire for hundreds of years. The Mongols simply weren't as good in the business of govern rather than fighting. And neutral territory. What does that mean? What kind of terrain? If it is any flat or open terrain, the Mongols have a field day. The armies who mananged to inflict the greatest defeats on the Roman army, at Cannae, Carhae, and Adrianople, all accomplished it on fairly even, open ground with the use of heavy cavalry. The one single weakness of the Roman legion was it's vulnerabilitiy to cavalry in the right setting. Those three battles all happened on plains. But, when Attila the Hun invaded the Empire in around 410 A.D., they won a few battles against the Roman army, but then basically screwed themselves by advancing deeper into the heart of Central Europe. The more hilly ground and thick forests of Europe negated the value of the Huns' massed arrow attacks and cavalry charges, since they had to charge through trees and scrub. The Romans were able to beat back the Hun tide simply through a change of scenery. The Huns were basically the ancestors of the Mongols, so if this takes place in a forest, Romans win. Any other way, and the legionaires won't be able to match the speed of the Mongol charge. C

Celtics was right. In terms of total land area, the Mongols ruled the largest land empire in the world, greater even than that of 19th century Great Britain. This was accomplished mainly because most of the land of Central Asia and Russia was flat steppes and plains. They also borrowed and perfected siege warfare from the Chinese. Celtics, I wasn't aware of them mastering gunpowder as you mentioned. Maybe I missed something. The Mongols actually were actually approaching Vienna, Austia, after basically running roughshod over Hungary and Poland, when Batu Khan died, and the generals IMMEDIATELY had to set off for home to prepare for the ensuing power struggle. If not for Batu's drinking and sex indulgences, much of Europe might have fallen. But one point I want to bring up. During the reign of Kublai Khan, the Mongols attemped to invade Burma and Vietnam, but were repulsed with heavy losses by the local rulers. They were defeated by a combination of the elephants used, as well as, and most importantly, the dense jungle negated their effective arrows storms and shock cavalry charges. This is nearly the same situation that befell the Huns against the Roman Empire. It is up for debate whether or not they could have comquered the rest of Europe.

Sorry for the long winded post, but once I start, it's kind of hard to stop!! Thanx for the great fight, super_wolvie, and I say that the Mongols take this in plain of steppe terrain, but the Romans take it in a jungle or forest environment.


--------------------
"Never in the course of human history has so much been owed by so many to so few."- Winston Churchill, commenting on the heroic struggles of the RAF against the German Luftwaffe.

----
I don't smoke, I don't chew... and I don't date girls who do.

----

War produces classic remarks by military commanders; on February 26, 1991, the US 1st Armored Division, the famous Big Red One, encountered the allegedly elite Iraqi Republican Guard. The divisional commander, Major General Ronald Griffiths, radioed his deputy, who was riding with the armored spearhead. "I understand we are engaging the Medina Division?" he said, referring to one of the crack Iraqi Guard divisions. "Negative, sir," came the reply. "We are destroying the Medina Division."
Great proof that despite their quantity, the Soviet tanks that NATO planners feared above all else could be shredded by the M1 Abrams, Challenger 2, Leopard 2, LeClerc, Ariete, and Merkava with ease. Patton would be proud.

Top
super_wolverine_Man
Posted: Mar 18 2008, 02:07 PM


Head Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 7,680
Member No.: 3
Joined: 9-January 08



QUOTE (Wingman @ Mar 18 2008, 12:52 PM)
Thanks man, you rock!! *rubs hands together* Alright. The Romans were far better leaders, administrators, rulers, and basically could create, govern, and keep together a stable, working empire for hundreds of years. The Mongols simply weren't as good in the business of govern rather than fighting. And neutral territory. What does that mean? What kind of terrain? If it is any flat or open terrain, the Mongols have a field day. The armies who mananged to inflict the greatest defeats on the Roman army, at Cannae, Carhae, and Adrianople, all accomplished it on fairly even, open ground with the use of heavy cavalry. The one single weakness of the Roman legion was it's vulnerabilitiy to cavalry in the right setting. Those three battles all happened on plains. But, when Attila the Hun invaded the Empire in around 410 A.D., they won a few battles against the Roman army, but then basically screwed themselves by advancing deeper into the heart of Central Europe. The more hilly ground and thick forests of Europe negated the value of the Huns' massed arrow attacks and cavalry charges, since they had to charge through trees and scrub. The Romans were able to beat back the Hun tide simply through a change of scenery. The Huns were basically the ancestors of the Mongols, so if this takes place in a forest, Romans win. Any other way, and the legionaires won't be able to match the speed of the Mongol charge. C

Celtics was right. In terms of total land area, the Mongols ruled the largest land empire in the world, greater even than that of 19th century Great Britain. This was accomplished mainly because most of the land of Central Asia and Russia was flat steppes and plains. They also borrowed and perfected siege warfare from the Chinese. Celtics, I wasn't aware of them mastering gunpowder as you mentioned. Maybe I missed something. The Mongols actually were actually approaching Vienna, Austia, after basically running roughshod over Hungary and Poland, when Batu Khan died, and the generals IMMEDIATELY had to set off for home to prepare for the ensuing power struggle. If not for Batu's drinking and sex indulgences, much of Europe might have fallen. But one point I want to bring up. During the reign of Kublai Khan, the Mongols attemped to invade Burma and Vietnam, but were repulsed with heavy losses by the local rulers. They were defeated by a combination of the elephants used, as well as, and most importantly, the dense jungle negated their effective arrows storms and shock cavalry charges. This is nearly the same situation that befell the Huns against the Roman Empire. It is up for debate whether or not they could have comquered the rest of Europe.

Sorry for the long winded post, but once I start, it's kind of hard to stop!! Thanx for the great fight, super_wolvie, and I say that the Mongols take this in plain of steppe terrain, but the Romans take it in a jungle or forest environment.

your quite welcome, now let's think about this, True the Romans were better at governing their people, however next to the mongols in military power they are nothing, I know, I know they created one of the greatest empires ever known to man. But remember they almost got it handed to them by Cannibal, it was only through their own leaders stupidity, that they lost. Now take a look at Ghengis (spelling?) Khan, basically crushed, all of asia, and some of europe, (well not all of europe), so what i'm trying to say is the Mongols, were well versed in fighting on all types of terrain. Second reason why say the mongols, is they were brutal, even more so than attila the hun, more importantly they were smart, and were a combination of Braun and Brain. Now i can admit that, if it was a long long long battle, than the mongols would eventually ware down, because of their lack of governing skills. So i guess the real question is at their respected times, who had better military power (europe) or (asia), personally i say it's Asia....Let's say they are fighting in the land presently known as turkey


--------------------

Points:

"The first shot rang out from somewhere and I heard a bullet wiz by my face. With my pump action shotgun ready, I shoot the first fool I see."

Grano's so gangster.
Top
super_wolverine_Man
Posted: Mar 18 2008, 02:10 PM


Head Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 7,680
Member No.: 3
Joined: 9-January 08



user posted image

user posted image


--------------------

Points:

"The first shot rang out from somewhere and I heard a bullet wiz by my face. With my pump action shotgun ready, I shoot the first fool I see."

Grano's so gangster.
Top
Wingman
Posted: Mar 18 2008, 03:09 PM


I'm better than you. That's all I know.


Group: Admin
Posts: 2,439
Member No.: 14
Joined: 11-January 08



QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Mar 18 2008, 09:07 AM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Mar 18 2008, 12:52 PM)
Thanks man, you rock!! *rubs hands together* Alright. The Romans were far better leaders, administrators, rulers, and basically could create, govern, and keep together a stable, working empire for hundreds of years. The Mongols simply weren't as good in the business of govern rather than fighting. And neutral territory. What does that mean? What kind of terrain? If it is any flat or open terrain, the Mongols have a field day. The armies who mananged to inflict the greatest defeats on the Roman army, at Cannae, Carhae, and Adrianople, all accomplished it on fairly even, open ground with the use of heavy cavalry. The one single weakness of the Roman legion was it's vulnerabilitiy to cavalry in the right setting. Those three battles all happened on plains. But, when Attila the Hun invaded the Empire in around 410 A.D., they won a few battles against the Roman army, but then basically screwed themselves by advancing deeper into the heart of Central Europe. The more hilly ground and thick forests of Europe negated the value of the Huns' massed arrow attacks and cavalry charges, since they had to charge through trees and scrub. The Romans were able to beat back the Hun tide simply through a change of scenery. The Huns were basically the ancestors of the Mongols, so if this takes place in a forest, Romans win. Any other way, and the legionaires won't be able to match the speed of the Mongol charge. C

Celtics was right. In terms of total land area, the Mongols ruled the largest land empire in the world, greater even than that of 19th century Great Britain. This was accomplished mainly because most of the land of Central Asia and Russia was flat steppes and plains. They also borrowed and perfected siege warfare from the Chinese. Celtics, I wasn't aware of them mastering gunpowder as you mentioned. Maybe I missed something. The Mongols actually were actually approaching Vienna, Austia, after basically running roughshod over Hungary and Poland, when Batu Khan died, and the generals IMMEDIATELY had to set off for home to prepare for the ensuing power struggle. If not for Batu's drinking and sex indulgences, much of Europe might have fallen. But one point I want to bring up. During the reign of Kublai Khan, the Mongols attemped to invade Burma and Vietnam, but were repulsed with heavy losses by the local rulers. They were defeated by a combination of the elephants used, as well as, and most importantly, the dense jungle negated their effective arrows storms and shock cavalry charges. This is nearly the same situation that befell the Huns against the Roman Empire. It is up for debate whether or not they could have comquered the rest of Europe.

Sorry for the long winded post, but once I start, it's kind of hard to stop!! Thanx for the great fight, super_wolvie, and I say that the Mongols take this in plain of steppe terrain, but the Romans take it in a jungle or forest environment.

your quite welcome, now let's think about this, True the Romans were better at governing their people, however next to the mongols in military power they are nothing, I know, I know they created one of the greatest empires ever known to man. But remember they almost got it handed to them by Cannibal, it was only through their own leaders stupidity, that they lost. Now take a look at Ghengis (spelling?) Khan, basically crushed, all of asia, and some of europe, (well not all of europe), so what i'm trying to say is the Mongols, were well versed in fighting on all types of terrain. Second reason why say the mongols, is they were brutal, even more so than attila the hun, more importantly they were smart, and were a combination of Braun and Brain. Now i can admit that, if it was a long long long battle, than the mongols would eventually ware down, because of their lack of governing skills. So i guess the real question is at their respected times, who had better military power (europe) or (asia), personally i say it's Asia....Let's say they are fighting in the land presently known as turkey

In Turkey, Mongols would have an edge because of the flat terrain. I'll say it again: Mongols were tops, TOPS, in cavalry warfare on open terrain. That's why they were able to conquer hundreds of thousands of square miles of land in just a few months at times. The speed of their cavalry attacks was frightening. And for their time, the Romans were tops. They didn't have that much good cavalry, but they didn't need it. They never conquered into plains or places where cavalry could really make or break a battle. And Hannibal was a very good general, but it is a testiment to the strength and resiliency of the Roman army and government system that they were able to survive after Cannae. People don't quite realize it, but Rome had a huge manpower pool to draw from. In his entire march around Italy, Hannibal, for reasons still not clear, never marched on Rome itself. If he had after Cannae, it would have been all over. That was a tactical blunder on his part. During his entire campaign, he destroyed something on the order of around 15 Roman legions. Thats about 80000 men, but within a few years, Rome not only rebuilt and resupplied those destroyed legions, but they were actually going on an offensive of their own at the heart of Carthage, with Scipio Africanus leading it, and their offensive met with much greater success. At Zama in 202, the Carthaginians were finally broken. Hannibal simply couldn't continue his march of destruction. The Romans out manned and out built him. They basically replaced men and equipment faster than he could destroy them, and deep in enemy territory, when he lost men, he usually had a lot of trouble replenishing them. The nature of the Roman republic allowed them to take such heavy hits without breaking. But a similar heavy hit against Carthage sealed their fate.

Consider another example I like to site. Pearl Harbor was meant to deal such a heavy blow to the U.S. in one shot that we would be forced to sue for peace rather than continue fighting. But even after we lost nearly a dozen battleships and numerous planes, destroyers, and cruisers, we nontheless turned the tide and gained the advantage over a period of just 18 months. Since our aircraft carriers were at sea at the time of the attack, our really core ships were still operational. And immediately we started building carriers, destroyers, supply ships, tanks, guns, aircraft, bombers, bombs, bullets, trucks, and all manner of supplies at a rate that Japanese couldn't possibly hope to match. It's the strength and flexibility of our economy and our labor force that meant that we could take as heavy a hit as that, and come right back at them fighting. The same goes with Rome.


--------------------
"Never in the course of human history has so much been owed by so many to so few."- Winston Churchill, commenting on the heroic struggles of the RAF against the German Luftwaffe.

----
I don't smoke, I don't chew... and I don't date girls who do.

----

War produces classic remarks by military commanders; on February 26, 1991, the US 1st Armored Division, the famous Big Red One, encountered the allegedly elite Iraqi Republican Guard. The divisional commander, Major General Ronald Griffiths, radioed his deputy, who was riding with the armored spearhead. "I understand we are engaging the Medina Division?" he said, referring to one of the crack Iraqi Guard divisions. "Negative, sir," came the reply. "We are destroying the Medina Division."
Great proof that despite their quantity, the Soviet tanks that NATO planners feared above all else could be shredded by the M1 Abrams, Challenger 2, Leopard 2, LeClerc, Ariete, and Merkava with ease. Patton would be proud.

Top
super_wolverine_Man
Posted: Mar 18 2008, 07:31 PM


Head Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 7,680
Member No.: 3
Joined: 9-January 08



QUOTE (Wingman @ Mar 18 2008, 03:09 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Mar 18 2008, 09:07 AM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Mar 18 2008, 12:52 PM)
Thanks man, you rock!! *rubs hands together* Alright. The Romans were far better leaders, administrators, rulers, and basically could create, govern, and keep together a stable, working empire for hundreds of years. The Mongols simply weren't as good in the business of govern rather than fighting. And neutral territory. What does that mean? What kind of terrain? If it is any flat or open terrain, the Mongols have a field day. The armies who mananged to inflict the greatest defeats on the Roman army, at Cannae, Carhae, and Adrianople, all accomplished it on fairly even, open ground with the use of heavy cavalry. The one single weakness of the Roman legion was it's vulnerabilitiy to cavalry in the right setting. Those three battles all happened on plains. But, when Attila the Hun invaded the Empire in around 410 A.D., they won a few battles against the Roman army, but then basically screwed themselves by advancing deeper into the heart of Central Europe. The more hilly ground and thick forests of Europe negated the value of the Huns' massed arrow attacks and cavalry charges, since they had to charge through trees and scrub. The Romans were able to beat back the Hun tide simply through a change of scenery. The Huns were basically the ancestors of the Mongols, so if this takes place in a forest, Romans win. Any other way, and the legionaires won't be able to match the speed of the Mongol charge. C

Celtics was right. In terms of total land area, the Mongols ruled the largest land empire in the world, greater even than that of 19th century Great Britain. This was accomplished mainly because most of the land of Central Asia and Russia was flat steppes and plains. They also borrowed and perfected siege warfare from the Chinese. Celtics, I wasn't aware of them mastering gunpowder as you mentioned. Maybe I missed something. The Mongols actually were actually approaching Vienna, Austia, after basically running roughshod over Hungary and Poland, when Batu Khan died, and the generals IMMEDIATELY had to set off for home to prepare for the ensuing power struggle. If not for Batu's drinking and sex indulgences, much of Europe might have fallen. But one point I want to bring up. During the reign of Kublai Khan, the Mongols attemped to invade Burma and Vietnam, but were repulsed with heavy losses by the local rulers. They were defeated by a combination of the elephants used, as well as, and most importantly, the dense jungle negated their effective arrows storms and shock cavalry charges. This is nearly the same situation that befell the Huns against the Roman Empire. It is up for debate whether or not they could have comquered the rest of Europe.

Sorry for the long winded post, but once I start, it's kind of hard to stop!! Thanx for the great fight, super_wolvie, and I say that the Mongols take this in plain of steppe terrain, but the Romans take it in a jungle or forest environment.

your quite welcome, now let's think about this, True the Romans were better at governing their people, however next to the mongols in military power they are nothing, I know, I know they created one of the greatest empires ever known to man. But remember they almost got it handed to them by Cannibal, it was only through their own leaders stupidity, that they lost. Now take a look at Ghengis (spelling?) Khan, basically crushed, all of asia, and some of europe, (well not all of europe), so what i'm trying to say is the Mongols, were well versed in fighting on all types of terrain. Second reason why say the mongols, is they were brutal, even more so than attila the hun, more importantly they were smart, and were a combination of Braun and Brain. Now i can admit that, if it was a long long long battle, than the mongols would eventually ware down, because of their lack of governing skills. So i guess the real question is at their respected times, who had better military power (europe) or (asia), personally i say it's Asia....Let's say they are fighting in the land presently known as turkey

In Turkey, Mongols would have an edge because of the flat terrain. I'll say it again: Mongols were tops, TOPS, in cavalry warfare on open terrain. That's why they were able to conquer hundreds of thousands of square miles of land in just a few months at times. The speed of their cavalry attacks was frightening. And for their time, the Romans were tops. They didn't have that much good cavalry, but they didn't need it. They never conquered into plains or places where cavalry could really make or break a battle. And Hannibal was a very good general, but it is a testiment to the strength and resiliency of the Roman army and government system that they were able to survive after Cannae. People don't quite realize it, but Rome had a huge manpower pool to draw from. In his entire march around Italy, Hannibal, for reasons still not clear, never marched on Rome itself. If he had after Cannae, it would have been all over. That was a tactical blunder on his part. During his entire campaign, he destroyed something on the order of around 15 Roman legions. Thats about 80000 men, but within a few years, Rome not only rebuilt and resupplied those destroyed legions, but they were actually going on an offensive of their own at the heart of Carthage, with Scipio Africanus leading it, and their offensive met with much greater success. At Zama in 202, the Carthaginians were finally broken. Hannibal simply couldn't continue his march of destruction. The Romans out manned and out built him. They basically replaced men and equipment faster than he could destroy them, and deep in enemy territory, when he lost men, he usually had a lot of trouble replenishing them. The nature of the Roman republic allowed them to take such heavy hits without breaking. But a similar heavy hit against Carthage sealed their fate.

Consider another example I like to site. Pearl Harbor was meant to deal such a heavy blow to the U.S. in one shot that we would be forced to sue for peace rather than continue fighting. But even after we lost nearly a dozen battleships and numerous planes, destroyers, and cruisers, we nontheless turned the tide and gained the advantage over a period of just 18 months. Since our aircraft carriers were at sea at the time of the attack, our really core ships were still operational. And immediately we started building carriers, destroyers, supply ships, tanks, guns, aircraft, bombers, bombs, bullets, trucks, and all manner of supplies at a rate that Japanese couldn't possibly hope to match. It's the strength and flexibility of our economy and our labor force that meant that we could take as heavy a hit as that, and come right back at them fighting. The same goes with Rome.

wow! wacko.gif you really know your stuff, i meann dang man your extremly intelligent (cracks fingers)

you make countless valid and intresting points, however, Cannibal is to blame for carthage's defeat

of rome, because his trek through the alps, dealt a major blow to his forces, after that, it was all

down hill from there. yeah i'll agree that Cannibal was a good leader, however, his route to rome's

central land was a mistake on his part. I mean how can you expect to march through all that land,

in those days without losing countless men and supplies, to disease, enemy attacks, and lack of

food. Now one could argue, that he could have reached rome, much easier but sailing to sicily.

However, if you remember (of course you do) that the roman's were waiting for him. either way he

showed he had the military power to be able to stand toe to toe, with rome, so this may have been

better than forcing his army through a thousand mile march, which nearly cut his forces in half.

Alright let's get back to Khan, This guy in my mind was one of the greatest military leaders of

all-time, as you've said before. but remember that he conquered much of Russia, which is

infamous for it's moutains, and don't forget that asia is also home to some of the largest

moutains in the world. What i'm trying to say is, Khan and the mongols, were masters of battle

on all land. Now seas a different story, if it was a naval battle, then rome hands it to him. Rome's

navy was very impressive in my opinion. I like what you said, about the U.S having a good

central goverment which allowed us to come back from an attack as brutal as pearl harbor.

Remember, Pearl Harbor was just one attack, I doubt rome could keep together, such a strong

goverment, from constant brutal attacks from the Mongols. Note these are just my opinions

(man it's such a long time since i've had a good discussion with someone)


--------------------

Points:

"The first shot rang out from somewhere and I heard a bullet wiz by my face. With my pump action shotgun ready, I shoot the first fool I see."

Grano's so gangster.
Top
Wingman
Posted: Mar 18 2008, 10:41 PM


I'm better than you. That's all I know.


Group: Admin
Posts: 2,439
Member No.: 14
Joined: 11-January 08



QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Mar 18 2008, 02:31 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Mar 18 2008, 03:09 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Mar 18 2008, 09:07 AM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Mar 18 2008, 12:52 PM)
Thanks man, you rock!! *rubs hands together* Alright. The Romans were far better leaders, administrators, rulers, and basically could create, govern, and keep together a stable, working empire for hundreds of years. The Mongols simply weren't as good in the business of govern rather than fighting. And neutral territory. What does that mean? What kind of terrain? If it is any flat or open terrain, the Mongols have a field day. The armies who mananged to inflict the greatest defeats on the Roman army, at Cannae, Carhae, and Adrianople, all accomplished it on fairly even, open ground with the use of heavy cavalry. The one single weakness of the Roman legion was it's vulnerabilitiy to cavalry in the right setting. Those three battles all happened on plains. But, when Attila the Hun invaded the Empire in around 410 A.D., they won a few battles against the Roman army, but then basically screwed themselves by advancing deeper into the heart of Central Europe. The more hilly ground and thick forests of Europe negated the value of the Huns' massed arrow attacks and cavalry charges, since they had to charge through trees and scrub. The Romans were able to beat back the Hun tide simply through a change of scenery. The Huns were basically the ancestors of the Mongols, so if this takes place in a forest, Romans win. Any other way, and the legionaires won't be able to match the speed of the Mongol charge. C

Celtics was right. In terms of total land area, the Mongols ruled the largest land empire in the world, greater even than that of 19th century Great Britain. This was accomplished mainly because most of the land of Central Asia and Russia was flat steppes and plains. They also borrowed and perfected siege warfare from the Chinese. Celtics, I wasn't aware of them mastering gunpowder as you mentioned. Maybe I missed something. The Mongols actually were actually approaching Vienna, Austia, after basically running roughshod over Hungary and Poland, when Batu Khan died, and the generals IMMEDIATELY had to set off for home to prepare for the ensuing power struggle. If not for Batu's drinking and sex indulgences, much of Europe might have fallen. But one point I want to bring up. During the reign of Kublai Khan, the Mongols attemped to invade Burma and Vietnam, but were repulsed with heavy losses by the local rulers. They were defeated by a combination of the elephants used, as well as, and most importantly, the dense jungle negated their effective arrows storms and shock cavalry charges. This is nearly the same situation that befell the Huns against the Roman Empire. It is up for debate whether or not they could have comquered the rest of Europe.

Sorry for the long winded post, but once I start, it's kind of hard to stop!! Thanx for the great fight, super_wolvie, and I say that the Mongols take this in plain of steppe terrain, but the Romans take it in a jungle or forest environment.

your quite welcome, now let's think about this, True the Romans were better at governing their people, however next to the mongols in military power they are nothing, I know, I know they created one of the greatest empires ever known to man. But remember they almost got it handed to them by Cannibal, it was only through their own leaders stupidity, that they lost. Now take a look at Ghengis (spelling?) Khan, basically crushed, all of asia, and some of europe, (well not all of europe), so what i'm trying to say is the Mongols, were well versed in fighting on all types of terrain. Second reason why say the mongols, is they were brutal, even more so than attila the hun, more importantly they were smart, and were a combination of Braun and Brain. Now i can admit that, if it was a long long long battle, than the mongols would eventually ware down, because of their lack of governing skills. So i guess the real question is at their respected times, who had better military power (europe) or (asia), personally i say it's Asia....Let's say they are fighting in the land presently known as turkey

In Turkey, Mongols would have an edge because of the flat terrain. I'll say it again: Mongols were tops, TOPS, in cavalry warfare on open terrain. That's why they were able to conquer hundreds of thousands of square miles of land in just a few months at times. The speed of their cavalry attacks was frightening. And for their time, the Romans were tops. They didn't have that much good cavalry, but they didn't need it. They never conquered into plains or places where cavalry could really make or break a battle. And Hannibal was a very good general, but it is a testiment to the strength and resiliency of the Roman army and government system that they were able to survive after Cannae. People don't quite realize it, but Rome had a huge manpower pool to draw from. In his entire march around Italy, Hannibal, for reasons still not clear, never marched on Rome itself. If he had after Cannae, it would have been all over. That was a tactical blunder on his part. During his entire campaign, he destroyed something on the order of around 15 Roman legions. Thats about 80000 men, but within a few years, Rome not only rebuilt and resupplied those destroyed legions, but they were actually going on an offensive of their own at the heart of Carthage, with Scipio Africanus leading it, and their offensive met with much greater success. At Zama in 202, the Carthaginians were finally broken. Hannibal simply couldn't continue his march of destruction. The Romans out manned and out built him. They basically replaced men and equipment faster than he could destroy them, and deep in enemy territory, when he lost men, he usually had a lot of trouble replenishing them. The nature of the Roman republic allowed them to take such heavy hits without breaking. But a similar heavy hit against Carthage sealed their fate.

Consider another example I like to site. Pearl Harbor was meant to deal such a heavy blow to the U.S. in one shot that we would be forced to sue for peace rather than continue fighting. But even after we lost nearly a dozen battleships and numerous planes, destroyers, and cruisers, we nontheless turned the tide and gained the advantage over a period of just 18 months. Since our aircraft carriers were at sea at the time of the attack, our really core ships were still operational. And immediately we started building carriers, destroyers, supply ships, tanks, guns, aircraft, bombers, bombs, bullets, trucks, and all manner of supplies at a rate that Japanese couldn't possibly hope to match. It's the strength and flexibility of our economy and our labor force that meant that we could take as heavy a hit as that, and come right back at them fighting. The same goes with Rome.

wow! wacko.gif you really know your stuff, i meann dang man your extremly intelligent (cracks fingers)

you make countless valid and intresting points, however, Cannibal is to blame for carthage's defeat

of rome, because his trek through the alps, dealt a major blow to his forces, after that, it was all

down hill from there. yeah i'll agree that Cannibal was a good leader, however, his route to rome's

central land was a mistake on his part. I mean how can you expect to march through all that land,

in those days without losing countless men and supplies, to disease, enemy attacks, and lack of

food. Now one could argue, that he could have reached rome, much easier but sailing to sicily.

However, if you remember (of course you do) that the roman's were waiting for him. either way he

showed he had the military power to be able to stand toe to toe, with rome, so this may have been

better than forcing his army through a thousand mile march, which nearly cut his forces in half.

Alright let's get back to Khan, This guy in my mind was one of the greatest military leaders of

all-time, as you've said before. but remember that he conquered much of Russia, which is

infamous for it's moutains, and don't forget that asia is also home to some of the largest

moutains in the world. What i'm trying to say is, Khan and the mongols, were masters of battle

on all land. Now seas a different story, if it was a naval battle, then rome hands it to him. Rome's

navy was very impressive in my opinion. I like what you said, about the U.S having a good

central goverment which allowed us to come back from an attack as brutal as pearl harbor.

Remember, Pearl Harbor was just one attack, I doubt rome could keep together, such a strong

goverment, from constant brutal attacks from the Mongols. Note these are just my opinions

(man it's such a long time since i've had a good discussion with someone)

Hey, thanks man. You're good too! And it's Hannibal, not Cannibal, unless you're trying to make a point. I like discussions too. You are absolutely right about the mountains. The Hindu Kush mountains as well as the Ural mountains both are formidable obstacles, but the Mongols rode small, sturdy horses that were ideal for their type of combat. When the Europeans first saw the Mongol's horses, they laughed. They were breeding these huge, magnificent war horses that could carry something on the order of about 800 pounds of gear. They had too, because many of the knights were lords who never exercised and were quite fat, and they were wearing armor. The horses were also armored in many cas es, so the total weight could be quite a bit. But in reality, the small, hardy steppe ponies had excellent stability and surefootedness, and they had incredible endurance. This made it easy for the Mongol armies to quickly traverse mountain passes quickly, minimizing their exposure to ambushes and attacks. Besides, most of the enemies they fought, including all the poor, arrogant Islamic empires, simply had no clue how quickly the Mongol army could get from point A to B, and they almost never expected such a quick and ferocious attack. Now, mountain terrain is quite different from jungle or forest terrain. Think about it. The main weapon of the Mongols was the compound bow, and in a thick forested area, their favored massed arrow barrages would do squat against a mounted or infantry squad. They would have to close to within probably twenty to thirty yards before being able to see their targets, and then they themselves are in range for Roman javelins and arrows. Plus, the simple act of maneuvering arould densely spaced trees and bushes would cause the Mongol formation to become scattered after a while. The Mongols were superb at well coordinated, massed cavalry assauts, but they lose their advantage when you get spread out by the terrain. Therefore, if the Mongols tried a attack on the Roman empire at it's height, they would make some early headway, but soon find out that the terrain they're fighting in is simply to difficult for their favored battle tactic. In Turkey, however, they would probably beat the Romans, since the grould is more open. As long as dense forest doens't come into play, the Mongols take it.

One other thing. Hannibal never expected to deal a death blow to the Roman republic. His goal was to launch an attack from a direction previously thought to be impossible, then try to DELIBERATELY draw the Romans into battle in order to defeat them. Defeat them enough, he reasoned, and the Roman's allies and they kingdoms that paid tribute to them in the form of men and money, would secede from the Roman Republic. Losing a large portion of it's available manpower and facing many new enemies and rowdy, restless tribute states, Rome would be in a very difficult situation. Hannibal's brilliance was that he struck directly at the heart of, at the time, the most powerful state in the world. That's like Russia moving a bunch of forces through the Bering Strait to Alaska, march down through Canada, and proceed to rampage all over the Midwest US, destroying crops, supplies, and material in the grain growing region, making the rest of the world wonder at the security of the US if they can't prevent a relatively small army from running arould all through it's heartland. But Rome wised up, and figured that two could play at that game, so they told Scipio Africanus to go across to Africa from Sicily and deal out a little revenge. It worked, and Hannibal had to withdraw to deal with this new threat on the home front.

Thanks for the compliment. I love history so much, even though all my friends hate it. I want to learn from the past so that people of the future don't repeat their mistakes. Plus I'm fascinated with all manner of things that kill people. Some would say I'm gonna be a serial killer. My parents say it's just being a male. *imitates manly dog growl that Tim makes in "Home Improvement"*


--------------------
"Never in the course of human history has so much been owed by so many to so few."- Winston Churchill, commenting on the heroic struggles of the RAF against the German Luftwaffe.

----
I don't smoke, I don't chew... and I don't date girls who do.

----

War produces classic remarks by military commanders; on February 26, 1991, the US 1st Armored Division, the famous Big Red One, encountered the allegedly elite Iraqi Republican Guard. The divisional commander, Major General Ronald Griffiths, radioed his deputy, who was riding with the armored spearhead. "I understand we are engaging the Medina Division?" he said, referring to one of the crack Iraqi Guard divisions. "Negative, sir," came the reply. "We are destroying the Medina Division."
Great proof that despite their quantity, the Soviet tanks that NATO planners feared above all else could be shredded by the M1 Abrams, Challenger 2, Leopard 2, LeClerc, Ariete, and Merkava with ease. Patton would be proud.

Top
super_wolverine_Man
Posted: Mar 19 2008, 02:02 PM


Head Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 7,680
Member No.: 3
Joined: 9-January 08



QUOTE (Wingman @ Mar 18 2008, 10:41 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Mar 18 2008, 02:31 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Mar 18 2008, 03:09 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Mar 18 2008, 09:07 AM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Mar 18 2008, 12:52 PM)
Thanks man, you rock!! *rubs hands together* Alright. The Romans were far better leaders, administrators, rulers, and basically could create, govern, and keep together a stable, working empire for hundreds of years. The Mongols simply weren't as good in the business of govern rather than fighting. And neutral territory. What does that mean? What kind of terrain? If it is any flat or open terrain, the Mongols have a field day. The armies who mananged to inflict the greatest defeats on the Roman army, at Cannae, Carhae, and Adrianople, all accomplished it on fairly even, open ground with the use of heavy cavalry. The one single weakness of the Roman legion was it's vulnerabilitiy to cavalry in the right setting. Those three battles all happened on plains. But, when Attila the Hun invaded the Empire in around 410 A.D., they won a few battles against the Roman army, but then basically screwed themselves by advancing deeper into the heart of Central Europe. The more hilly ground and thick forests of Europe negated the value of the Huns' massed arrow attacks and cavalry charges, since they had to charge through trees and scrub. The Romans were able to beat back the Hun tide simply through a change of scenery. The Huns were basically the ancestors of the Mongols, so if this takes place in a forest, Romans win. Any other way, and the legionaires won't be able to match the speed of the Mongol charge. C

Celtics was right. In terms of total land area, the Mongols ruled the largest land empire in the world, greater even than that of 19th century Great Britain. This was accomplished mainly because most of the land of Central Asia and Russia was flat steppes and plains. They also borrowed and perfected siege warfare from the Chinese. Celtics, I wasn't aware of them mastering gunpowder as you mentioned. Maybe I missed something. The Mongols actually were actually approaching Vienna, Austia, after basically running roughshod over Hungary and Poland, when Batu Khan died, and the generals IMMEDIATELY had to set off for home to prepare for the ensuing power struggle. If not for Batu's drinking and sex indulgences, much of Europe might have fallen. But one point I want to bring up. During the reign of Kublai Khan, the Mongols attemped to invade Burma and Vietnam, but were repulsed with heavy losses by the local rulers. They were defeated by a combination of the elephants used, as well as, and most importantly, the dense jungle negated their effective arrows storms and shock cavalry charges. This is nearly the same situation that befell the Huns against the Roman Empire. It is up for debate whether or not they could have comquered the rest of Europe.

Sorry for the long winded post, but once I start, it's kind of hard to stop!! Thanx for the great fight, super_wolvie, and I say that the Mongols take this in plain of steppe terrain, but the Romans take it in a jungle or forest environment.

your quite welcome, now let's think about this, True the Romans were better at governing their people, however next to the mongols in military power they are nothing, I know, I know they created one of the greatest empires ever known to man. But remember they almost got it handed to them by Cannibal, it was only through their own leaders stupidity, that they lost. Now take a look at Ghengis (spelling?) Khan, basically crushed, all of asia, and some of europe, (well not all of europe), so what i'm trying to say is the Mongols, were well versed in fighting on all types of terrain. Second reason why say the mongols, is they were brutal, even more so than attila the hun, more importantly they were smart, and were a combination of Braun and Brain. Now i can admit that, if it was a long long long battle, than the mongols would eventually ware down, because of their lack of governing skills. So i guess the real question is at their respected times, who had better military power (europe) or (asia), personally i say it's Asia....Let's say they are fighting in the land presently known as turkey

In Turkey, Mongols would have an edge because of the flat terrain. I'll say it again: Mongols were tops, TOPS, in cavalry warfare on open terrain. That's why they were able to conquer hundreds of thousands of square miles of land in just a few months at times. The speed of their cavalry attacks was frightening. And for their time, the Romans were tops. They didn't have that much good cavalry, but they didn't need it. They never conquered into plains or places where cavalry could really make or break a battle. And Hannibal was a very good general, but it is a testiment to the strength and resiliency of the Roman army and government system that they were able to survive after Cannae. People don't quite realize it, but Rome had a huge manpower pool to draw from. In his entire march around Italy, Hannibal, for reasons still not clear, never marched on Rome itself. If he had after Cannae, it would have been all over. That was a tactical blunder on his part. During his entire campaign, he destroyed something on the order of around 15 Roman legions. Thats about 80000 men, but within a few years, Rome not only rebuilt and resupplied those destroyed legions, but they were actually going on an offensive of their own at the heart of Carthage, with Scipio Africanus leading it, and their offensive met with much greater success. At Zama in 202, the Carthaginians were finally broken. Hannibal simply couldn't continue his march of destruction. The Romans out manned and out built him. They basically replaced men and equipment faster than he could destroy them, and deep in enemy territory, when he lost men, he usually had a lot of trouble replenishing them. The nature of the Roman republic allowed them to take such heavy hits without breaking. But a similar heavy hit against Carthage sealed their fate.

Consider another example I like to site. Pearl Harbor was meant to deal such a heavy blow to the U.S. in one shot that we would be forced to sue for peace rather than continue fighting. But even after we lost nearly a dozen battleships and numerous planes, destroyers, and cruisers, we nontheless turned the tide and gained the advantage over a period of just 18 months. Since our aircraft carriers were at sea at the time of the attack, our really core ships were still operational. And immediately we started building carriers, destroyers, supply ships, tanks, guns, aircraft, bombers, bombs, bullets, trucks, and all manner of supplies at a rate that Japanese couldn't possibly hope to match. It's the strength and flexibility of our economy and our labor force that meant that we could take as heavy a hit as that, and come right back at them fighting. The same goes with Rome.

wow! wacko.gif you really know your stuff, i meann dang man your extremly intelligent (cracks fingers)

you make countless valid and intresting points, however, Cannibal is to blame for carthage's defeat

of rome, because his trek through the alps, dealt a major blow to his forces, after that, it was all

down hill from there. yeah i'll agree that Cannibal was a good leader, however, his route to rome's

central land was a mistake on his part. I mean how can you expect to march through all that land,

in those days without losing countless men and supplies, to disease, enemy attacks, and lack of

food. Now one could argue, that he could have reached rome, much easier but sailing to sicily.

However, if you remember (of course you do) that the roman's were waiting for him. either way he

showed he had the military power to be able to stand toe to toe, with rome, so this may have been

better than forcing his army through a thousand mile march, which nearly cut his forces in half.

Alright let's get back to Khan, This guy in my mind was one of the greatest military leaders of

all-time, as you've said before. but remember that he conquered much of Russia, which is

infamous for it's moutains, and don't forget that asia is also home to some of the largest

moutains in the world. What i'm trying to say is, Khan and the mongols, were masters of battle

on all land. Now seas a different story, if it was a naval battle, then rome hands it to him. Rome's

navy was very impressive in my opinion. I like what you said, about the U.S having a good

central goverment which allowed us to come back from an attack as brutal as pearl harbor.

Remember, Pearl Harbor was just one attack, I doubt rome could keep together, such a strong

goverment, from constant brutal attacks from the Mongols. Note these are just my opinions

(man it's such a long time since i've had a good discussion with someone)

Hey, thanks man. You're good too! And it's Hannibal, not Cannibal, unless you're trying to make a point. I like discussions too. You are absolutely right about the mountains. The Hindu Kush mountains as well as the Ural mountains both are formidable obstacles, but the Mongols rode small, sturdy horses that were ideal for their type of combat. When the Europeans first saw the Mongol's horses, they laughed. They were breeding these huge, magnificent war horses that could carry something on the order of about 800 pounds of gear. They had too, because many of the knights were lords who never exercised and were quite fat, and they were wearing armor. The horses were also armored in many cas es, so the total weight could be quite a bit. But in reality, the small, hardy steppe ponies had excellent stability and surefootedness, and they had incredible endurance. This made it easy for the Mongol armies to quickly traverse mountain passes quickly, minimizing their exposure to ambushes and attacks. Besides, most of the enemies they fought, including all the poor, arrogant Islamic empires, simply had no clue how quickly the Mongol army could get from point A to B, and they almost never expected such a quick and ferocious attack. Now, mountain terrain is quite different from jungle or forest terrain. Think about it. The main weapon of the Mongols was the compound bow, and in a thick forested area, their favored massed arrow barrages would do squat against a mounted or infantry squad. They would have to close to within probably twenty to thirty yards before being able to see their targets, and then they themselves are in range for Roman javelins and arrows. Plus, the simple act of maneuvering arould densely spaced trees and bushes would cause the Mongol formation to become scattered after a while. The Mongols were superb at well coordinated, massed cavalry assauts, but they lose their advantage when you get spread out by the terrain. Therefore, if the Mongols tried a attack on the Roman empire at it's height, they would make some early headway, but soon find out that the terrain they're fighting in is simply to difficult for their favored battle tactic. In Turkey, however, they would probably beat the Romans, since the grould is more open. As long as dense forest doens't come into play, the Mongols take it.

One other thing. Hannibal never expected to deal a death blow to the Roman republic. His goal was to launch an attack from a direction previously thought to be impossible, then try to DELIBERATELY draw the Romans into battle in order to defeat them. Defeat them enough, he reasoned, and the Roman's allies and they kingdoms that paid tribute to them in the form of men and money, would secede from the Roman Republic. Losing a large portion of it's available manpower and facing many new enemies and rowdy, restless tribute states, Rome would be in a very difficult situation. Hannibal's brilliance was that he struck directly at the heart of, at the time, the most powerful state in the world. That's like Russia moving a bunch of forces through the Bering Strait to Alaska, march down through Canada, and proceed to rampage all over the Midwest US, destroying crops, supplies, and material in the grain growing region, making the rest of the world wonder at the security of the US if they can't prevent a relatively small army from running arould all through it's heartland. But Rome wised up, and figured that two could play at that game, so they told Scipio Africanus to go across to Africa from Sicily and deal out a little revenge. It worked, and Hannibal had to withdraw to deal with this new threat on the home front.

Thanks for the compliment. I love history so much, even though all my friends hate it. I want to learn from the past so that people of the future don't repeat their mistakes. Plus I'm fascinated with all manner of things that kill people. Some would say I'm gonna be a serial killer. My parents say it's just being a male. *imitates manly dog growl that Tim makes in "Home Improvement"*

thanks for the kind words, and i know it's hannibal, i just said cannibal, because he was

it sounds so similar tongue.gif . So we can both agree that it depends on where they fight, but most of time, the mongols would win


--------------------

Points:

"The first shot rang out from somewhere and I heard a bullet wiz by my face. With my pump action shotgun ready, I shoot the first fool I see."

Grano's so gangster.
Top
Wingman
Posted: Mar 19 2008, 02:14 PM


I'm better than you. That's all I know.


Group: Admin
Posts: 2,439
Member No.: 14
Joined: 11-January 08



QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Mar 19 2008, 09:02 AM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Mar 18 2008, 10:41 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Mar 18 2008, 02:31 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Mar 18 2008, 03:09 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Mar 18 2008, 09:07 AM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Mar 18 2008, 12:52 PM)
Thanks man, you rock!! *rubs hands together* Alright. The Romans were far better leaders, administrators, rulers, and basically could create, govern, and keep together a stable, working empire for hundreds of years. The Mongols simply weren't as good in the business of govern rather than fighting. And neutral territory. What does that mean? What kind of terrain? If it is any flat or open terrain, the Mongols have a field day. The armies who mananged to inflict the greatest defeats on the Roman army, at Cannae, Carhae, and Adrianople, all accomplished it on fairly even, open ground with the use of heavy cavalry. The one single weakness of the Roman legion was it's vulnerabilitiy to cavalry in the right setting. Those three battles all happened on plains. But, when Attila the Hun invaded the Empire in around 410 A.D., they won a few battles against the Roman army, but then basically screwed themselves by advancing deeper into the heart of Central Europe. The more hilly ground and thick forests of Europe negated the value of the Huns' massed arrow attacks and cavalry charges, since they had to charge through trees and scrub. The Romans were able to beat back the Hun tide simply through a change of scenery. The Huns were basically the ancestors of the Mongols, so if this takes place in a forest, Romans win. Any other way, and the legionaires won't be able to match the speed of the Mongol charge. C

Celtics was right. In terms of total land area, the Mongols ruled the largest land empire in the world, greater even than that of 19th century Great Britain. This was accomplished mainly because most of the land of Central Asia and Russia was flat steppes and plains. They also borrowed and perfected siege warfare from the Chinese. Celtics, I wasn't aware of them mastering gunpowder as you mentioned. Maybe I missed something. The Mongols actually were actually approaching Vienna, Austia, after basically running roughshod over Hungary and Poland, when Batu Khan died, and the generals IMMEDIATELY had to set off for home to prepare for the ensuing power struggle. If not for Batu's drinking and sex indulgences, much of Europe might have fallen. But one point I want to bring up. During the reign of Kublai Khan, the Mongols attemped to invade Burma and Vietnam, but were repulsed with heavy losses by the local rulers. They were defeated by a combination of the elephants used, as well as, and most importantly, the dense jungle negated their effective arrows storms and shock cavalry charges. This is nearly the same situation that befell the Huns against the Roman Empire. It is up for debate whether or not they could have comquered the rest of Europe.

Sorry for the long winded post, but once I start, it's kind of hard to stop!! Thanx for the great fight, super_wolvie, and I say that the Mongols take this in plain of steppe terrain, but the Romans take it in a jungle or forest environment.

your quite welcome, now let's think about this, True the Romans were better at governing their people, however next to the mongols in military power they are nothing, I know, I know they created one of the greatest empires ever known to man. But remember they almost got it handed to them by Cannibal, it was only through their own leaders stupidity, that they lost. Now take a look at Ghengis (spelling?) Khan, basically crushed, all of asia, and some of europe, (well not all of europe), so what i'm trying to say is the Mongols, were well versed in fighting on all types of terrain. Second reason why say the mongols, is they were brutal, even more so than attila the hun, more importantly they were smart, and were a combination of Braun and Brain. Now i can admit that, if it was a long long long battle, than the mongols would eventually ware down, because of their lack of governing skills. So i guess the real question is at their respected times, who had better military power (europe) or (asia), personally i say it's Asia....Let's say they are fighting in the land presently known as turkey

In Turkey, Mongols would have an edge because of the flat terrain. I'll say it again: Mongols were tops, TOPS, in cavalry warfare on open terrain. That's why they were able to conquer hundreds of thousands of square miles of land in just a few months at times. The speed of their cavalry attacks was frightening. And for their time, the Romans were tops. They didn't have that much good cavalry, but they didn't need it. They never conquered into plains or places where cavalry could really make or break a battle. And Hannibal was a very good general, but it is a testiment to the strength and resiliency of the Roman army and government system that they were able to survive after Cannae. People don't quite realize it, but Rome had a huge manpower pool to draw from. In his entire march around Italy, Hannibal, for reasons still not clear, never marched on Rome itself. If he had after Cannae, it would have been all over. That was a tactical blunder on his part. During his entire campaign, he destroyed something on the order of around 15 Roman legions. Thats about 80000 men, but within a few years, Rome not only rebuilt and resupplied those destroyed legions, but they were actually going on an offensive of their own at the heart of Carthage, with Scipio Africanus leading it, and their offensive met with much greater success. At Zama in 202, the Carthaginians were finally broken. Hannibal simply couldn't continue his march of destruction. The Romans out manned and out built him. They basically replaced men and equipment faster than he could destroy them, and deep in enemy territory, when he lost men, he usually had a lot of trouble replenishing them. The nature of the Roman republic allowed them to take such heavy hits without breaking. But a similar heavy hit against Carthage sealed their fate.

Consider another example I like to site. Pearl Harbor was meant to deal such a heavy blow to the U.S. in one shot that we would be forced to sue for peace rather than continue fighting. But even after we lost nearly a dozen battleships and numerous planes, destroyers, and cruisers, we nontheless turned the tide and gained the advantage over a period of just 18 months. Since our aircraft carriers were at sea at the time of the attack, our really core ships were still operational. And immediately we started building carriers, destroyers, supply ships, tanks, guns, aircraft, bombers, bombs, bullets, trucks, and all manner of supplies at a rate that Japanese couldn't possibly hope to match. It's the strength and flexibility of our economy and our labor force that meant that we could take as heavy a hit as that, and come right back at them fighting. The same goes with Rome.

wow! wacko.gif you really know your stuff, i meann dang man your extremly intelligent (cracks fingers)

you make countless valid and intresting points, however, Cannibal is to blame for carthage's defeat

of rome, because his trek through the alps, dealt a major blow to his forces, after that, it was all

down hill from there. yeah i'll agree that Cannibal was a good leader, however, his route to rome's

central land was a mistake on his part. I mean how can you expect to march through all that land,

in those days without losing countless men and supplies, to disease, enemy attacks, and lack of

food. Now one could argue, that he could have reached rome, much easier but sailing to sicily.

However, if you remember (of course you do) that the roman's were waiting for him. either way he

showed he had the military power to be able to stand toe to toe, with rome, so this may have been

better than forcing his army through a thousand mile march, which nearly cut his forces in half.

Alright let's get back to Khan, This guy in my mind was one of the greatest military leaders of

all-time, as you've said before. but remember that he conquered much of Russia, which is

infamous for it's moutains, and don't forget that asia is also home to some of the largest

moutains in the world. What i'm trying to say is, Khan and the mongols, were masters of battle

on all land. Now seas a different story, if it was a naval battle, then rome hands it to him. Rome's

navy was very impressive in my opinion. I like what you said, about the U.S having a good

central goverment which allowed us to come back from an attack as brutal as pearl harbor.

Remember, Pearl Harbor was just one attack, I doubt rome could keep together, such a strong

goverment, from constant brutal attacks from the Mongols. Note these are just my opinions

(man it's such a long time since i've had a good discussion with someone)

Hey, thanks man. You're good too! And it's Hannibal, not Cannibal, unless you're trying to make a point. I like discussions too. You are absolutely right about the mountains. The Hindu Kush mountains as well as the Ural mountains both are formidable obstacles, but the Mongols rode small, sturdy horses that were ideal for their type of combat. When the Europeans first saw the Mongol's horses, they laughed. They were breeding these huge, magnificent war horses that could carry something on the order of about 800 pounds of gear. They had too, because many of the knights were lords who never exercised and were quite fat, and they were wearing armor. The horses were also armored in many cas es, so the total weight could be quite a bit. But in reality, the small, hardy steppe ponies had excellent stability and surefootedness, and they had incredible endurance. This made it easy for the Mongol armies to quickly traverse mountain passes quickly, minimizing their exposure to ambushes and attacks. Besides, most of the enemies they fought, including all the poor, arrogant Islamic empires, simply had no clue how quickly the Mongol army could get from point A to B, and they almost never expected such a quick and ferocious attack. Now, mountain terrain is quite different from jungle or forest terrain. Think about it. The main weapon of the Mongols was the compound bow, and in a thick forested area, their favored massed arrow barrages would do squat against a mounted or infantry squad. They would have to close to within probably twenty to thirty yards before being able to see their targets, and then they themselves are in range for Roman javelins and arrows. Plus, the simple act of maneuvering arould densely spaced trees and bushes would cause the Mongol formation to become scattered after a while. The Mongols were superb at well coordinated, massed cavalry assauts, but they lose their advantage when you get spread out by the terrain. Therefore, if the Mongols tried a attack on the Roman empire at it's height, they would make some early headway, but soon find out that the terrain they're fighting in is simply to difficult for their favored battle tactic. In Turkey, however, they would probably beat the Romans, since the grould is more open. As long as dense forest doens't come into play, the Mongols take it.

One other thing. Hannibal never expected to deal a death blow to the Roman republic. His goal was to launch an attack from a direction previously thought to be impossible, then try to DELIBERATELY draw the Romans into battle in order to defeat them. Defeat them enough, he reasoned, and the Roman's allies and they kingdoms that paid tribute to them in the form of men and money, would secede from the Roman Republic. Losing a large portion of it's available manpower and facing many new enemies and rowdy, restless tribute states, Rome would be in a very difficult situation. Hannibal's brilliance was that he struck directly at the heart of, at the time, the most powerful state in the world. That's like Russia moving a bunch of forces through the Bering Strait to Alaska, march down through Canada, and proceed to rampage all over the Midwest US, destroying crops, supplies, and material in the grain growing region, making the rest of the world wonder at the security of the US if they can't prevent a relatively small army from running arould all through it's heartland. But Rome wised up, and figured that two could play at that game, so they told Scipio Africanus to go across to Africa from Sicily and deal out a little revenge. It worked, and Hannibal had to withdraw to deal with this new threat on the home front.

Thanks for the compliment. I love history so much, even though all my friends hate it. I want to learn from the past so that people of the future don't repeat their mistakes. Plus I'm fascinated with all manner of things that kill people. Some would say I'm gonna be a serial killer. My parents say it's just being a male. *imitates manly dog growl that Tim makes in "Home Improvement"*

thanks for the kind words, and i know it's hannibal, i just said cannibal, because he was

it sounds so similar tongue.gif . So we can both agree that it depends on where they fight, but most of time, the mongols would win

Absolutely. Heavy infantry is always at a disadvantage to good ol' heavy cavalry. Just check out Wikipedia or an encyclopedia about the Battle of Adrianople. The Goths really handed the Romans their butts in that fight.


--------------------
"Never in the course of human history has so much been owed by so many to so few."- Winston Churchill, commenting on the heroic struggles of the RAF against the German Luftwaffe.

----
I don't smoke, I don't chew... and I don't date girls who do.

----

War produces classic remarks by military commanders; on February 26, 1991, the US 1st Armored Division, the famous Big Red One, encountered the allegedly elite Iraqi Republican Guard. The divisional commander, Major General Ronald Griffiths, radioed his deputy, who was riding with the armored spearhead. "I understand we are engaging the Medina Division?" he said, referring to one of the crack Iraqi Guard divisions. "Negative, sir," came the reply. "We are destroying the Medina Division."
Great proof that despite their quantity, the Soviet tanks that NATO planners feared above all else could be shredded by the M1 Abrams, Challenger 2, Leopard 2, LeClerc, Ariete, and Merkava with ease. Patton would be proud.

Top
super_wolverine_Man
Posted: Mar 19 2008, 08:06 PM


Head Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 7,680
Member No.: 3
Joined: 9-January 08



QUOTE (Wingman @ Mar 19 2008, 02:14 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Mar 19 2008, 09:02 AM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Mar 18 2008, 10:41 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Mar 18 2008, 02:31 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Mar 18 2008, 03:09 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Mar 18 2008, 09:07 AM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Mar 18 2008, 12:52 PM)
Thanks man, you rock!! *rubs hands together* Alright. The Romans were far better leaders, administrators, rulers, and basically could create, govern, and keep together a stable, working empire for hundreds of years. The Mongols simply weren't as good in the business of govern rather than fighting. And neutral territory. What does that mean? What kind of terrain? If it is any flat or open terrain, the Mongols have a field day. The armies who mananged to inflict the greatest defeats on the Roman army, at Cannae, Carhae, and Adrianople, all accomplished it on fairly even, open ground with the use of heavy cavalry. The one single weakness of the Roman legion was it's vulnerabilitiy to cavalry in the right setting. Those three battles all happened on plains. But, when Attila the Hun invaded the Empire in around 410 A.D., they won a few battles against the Roman army, but then basically screwed themselves by advancing deeper into the heart of Central Europe. The more hilly ground and thick forests of Europe negated the value of the Huns' massed arrow attacks and cavalry charges, since they had to charge through trees and scrub. The Romans were able to beat back the Hun tide simply through a change of scenery. The Huns were basically the ancestors of the Mongols, so if this takes place in a forest, Romans win. Any other way, and the legionaires won't be able to match the speed of the Mongol charge. C

Celtics was right. In terms of total land area, the Mongols ruled the largest land empire in the world, greater even than that of 19th century Great Britain. This was accomplished mainly because most of the land of Central Asia and Russia was flat steppes and plains. They also borrowed and perfected siege warfare from the Chinese. Celtics, I wasn't aware of them mastering gunpowder as you mentioned. Maybe I missed something. The Mongols actually were actually approaching Vienna, Austia, after basically running roughshod over Hungary and Poland, when Batu Khan died, and the generals IMMEDIATELY had to set off for home to prepare for the ensuing power struggle. If not for Batu's drinking and sex indulgences, much of Europe might have fallen. But one point I want to bring up. During the reign of Kublai Khan, the Mongols attemped to invade Burma and Vietnam, but were repulsed with heavy losses by the local rulers. They were defeated by a combination of the elephants used, as well as, and most importantly, the dense jungle negated their effective arrows storms and shock cavalry charges. This is nearly the same situation that befell the Huns against the Roman Empire. It is up for debate whether or not they could have comquered the rest of Europe.

Sorry for the long winded post, but once I start, it's kind of hard to stop!! Thanx for the great fight, super_wolvie, and I say that the Mongols take this in plain of steppe terrain, but the Romans take it in a jungle or forest environment.

your quite welcome, now let's think about this, True the Romans were better at governing their people, however next to the mongols in military power they are nothing, I know, I know they created one of the greatest empires ever known to man. But remember they almost got it handed to them by Cannibal, it was only through their own leaders stupidity, that they lost. Now take a look at Ghengis (spelling?) Khan, basically crushed, all of asia, and some of europe, (well not all of europe), so what i'm trying to say is the Mongols, were well versed in fighting on all types of terrain. Second reason why say the mongols, is they were brutal, even more so than attila the hun, more importantly they were smart, and were a combination of Braun and Brain. Now i can admit that, if it was a long long long battle, than the mongols would eventually ware down, because of their lack of governing skills. So i guess the real question is at their respected times, who had better military power (europe) or (asia), personally i say it's Asia....Let's say they are fighting in the land presently known as turkey

In Turkey, Mongols would have an edge because of the flat terrain. I'll say it again: Mongols were tops, TOPS, in cavalry warfare on open terrain. That's why they were able to conquer hundreds of thousands of square miles of land in just a few months at times. The speed of their cavalry attacks was frightening. And for their time, the Romans were tops. They didn't have that much good cavalry, but they didn't need it. They never conquered into plains or places where cavalry could really make or break a battle. And Hannibal was a very good general, but it is a testiment to the strength and resiliency of the Roman army and government system that they were able to survive after Cannae. People don't quite realize it, but Rome had a huge manpower pool to draw from. In his entire march around Italy, Hannibal, for reasons still not clear, never marched on Rome itself. If he had after Cannae, it would have been all over. That was a tactical blunder on his part. During his entire campaign, he destroyed something on the order of around 15 Roman legions. Thats about 80000 men, but within a few years, Rome not only rebuilt and resupplied those destroyed legions, but they were actually going on an offensive of their own at the heart of Carthage, with Scipio Africanus leading it, and their offensive met with much greater success. At Zama in 202, the Carthaginians were finally broken. Hannibal simply couldn't continue his march of destruction. The Romans out manned and out built him. They basically replaced men and equipment faster than he could destroy them, and deep in enemy territory, when he lost men, he usually had a lot of trouble replenishing them. The nature of the Roman republic allowed them to take such heavy hits without breaking. But a similar heavy hit against Carthage sealed their fate.

Consider another example I like to site. Pearl Harbor was meant to deal such a heavy blow to the U.S. in one shot that we would be forced to sue for peace rather than continue fighting. But even after we lost nearly a dozen battleships and numerous planes, destroyers, and cruisers, we nontheless turned the tide and gained the advantage over a period of just 18 months. Since our aircraft carriers were at sea at the time of the attack, our really core ships were still operational. And immediately we started building carriers, destroyers, supply ships, tanks, guns, aircraft, bombers, bombs, bullets, trucks, and all manner of supplies at a rate that Japanese couldn't possibly hope to match. It's the strength and flexibility of our economy and our labor force that meant that we could take as heavy a hit as that, and come right back at them fighting. The same goes with Rome.

wow! wacko.gif you really know your stuff, i meann dang man your extremly intelligent (cracks fingers)

you make countless valid and intresting points, however, Cannibal is to blame for carthage's defeat

of rome, because his trek through the alps, dealt a major blow to his forces, after that, it was all

down hill from there. yeah i'll agree that Cannibal was a good leader, however, his route to rome's

central land was a mistake on his part. I mean how can you expect to march through all that land,

in those days without losing countless men and supplies, to disease, enemy attacks, and lack of

food. Now one could argue, that he could have reached rome, much easier but sailing to sicily.

However, if you remember (of course you do) that the roman's were waiting for him. either way he

showed he had the military power to be able to stand toe to toe, with rome, so this may have been

better than forcing his army through a thousand mile march, which nearly cut his forces in half.

Alright let's get back to Khan, This guy in my mind was one of the greatest military leaders of

all-time, as you've said before. but remember that he conquered much of Russia, which is

infamous for it's moutains, and don't forget that asia is also home to some of the largest

moutains in the world. What i'm trying to say is, Khan and the mongols, were masters of battle

on all land. Now seas a different story, if it was a naval battle, then rome hands it to him. Rome's

navy was very impressive in my opinion. I like what you said, about the U.S having a good

central goverment which allowed us to come back from an attack as brutal as pearl harbor.

Remember, Pearl Harbor was just one attack, I doubt rome could keep together, such a strong

goverment, from constant brutal attacks from the Mongols. Note these are just my opinions

(man it's such a long time since i've had a good discussion with someone)

Hey, thanks man. You're good too! And it's Hannibal, not Cannibal, unless you're trying to make a point. I like discussions too. You are absolutely right about the mountains. The Hindu Kush mountains as well as the Ural mountains both are formidable obstacles, but the Mongols rode small, sturdy horses that were ideal for their type of combat. When the Europeans first saw the Mongol's horses, they laughed. They were breeding these huge, magnificent war horses that could carry something on the order of about 800 pounds of gear. They had too, because many of the knights were lords who never exercised and were quite fat, and they were wearing armor. The horses were also armored in many cas es, so the total weight could be quite a bit. But in reality, the small, hardy steppe ponies had excellent stability and surefootedness, and they had incredible endurance. This made it easy for the Mongol armies to quickly traverse mountain passes quickly, minimizing their exposure to ambushes and attacks. Besides, most of the enemies they fought, including all the poor, arrogant Islamic empires, simply had no clue how quickly the Mongol army could get from point A to B, and they almost never expected such a quick and ferocious attack. Now, mountain terrain is quite different from jungle or forest terrain. Think about it. The main weapon of the Mongols was the compound bow, and in a thick forested area, their favored massed arrow barrages would do squat against a mounted or infantry squad. They would have to close to within probably twenty to thirty yards before being able to see their targets, and then they themselves are in range for Roman javelins and arrows. Plus, the simple act of maneuvering arould densely spaced trees and bushes would cause the Mongol formation to become scattered after a while. The Mongols were superb at well coordinated, massed cavalry assauts, but they lose their advantage when you get spread out by the terrain. Therefore, if the Mongols tried a attack on the Roman empire at it's height, they would make some early headway, but soon find out that the terrain they're fighting in is simply to difficult for their favored battle tactic. In Turkey, however, they would probably beat the Romans, since the grould is more open. As long as dense forest doens't come into play, the Mongols take it.

One other thing. Hannibal never expected to deal a death blow to the Roman republic. His goal was to launch an attack from a direction previously thought to be impossible, then try to DELIBERATELY draw the Romans into battle in order to defeat them. Defeat them enough, he reasoned, and the Roman's allies and they kingdoms that paid tribute to them in the form of men and money, would secede from the Roman Republic. Losing a large portion of it's available manpower and facing many new enemies and rowdy, restless tribute states, Rome would be in a very difficult situation. Hannibal's brilliance was that he struck directly at the heart of, at the time, the most powerful state in the world. That's like Russia moving a bunch of forces through the Bering Strait to Alaska, march down through Canada, and proceed to rampage all over the Midwest US, destroying crops, supplies, and material in the grain growing region, making the rest of the world wonder at the security of the US if they can't prevent a relatively small army from running arould all through it's heartland. But Rome wised up, and figured that two could play at that game, so they told Scipio Africanus to go across to Africa from Sicily and deal out a little revenge. It worked, and Hannibal had to withdraw to deal with this new threat on the home front.

Thanks for the compliment. I love history so much, even though all my friends hate it. I want to learn from the past so that people of the future don't repeat their mistakes. Plus I'm fascinated with all manner of things that kill people. Some would say I'm gonna be a serial killer. My parents say it's just being a male. *imitates manly dog growl that Tim makes in "Home Improvement"*

thanks for the kind words, and i know it's hannibal, i just said cannibal, because he was

it sounds so similar tongue.gif . So we can both agree that it depends on where they fight, but most of time, the mongols would win

Absolutely. Heavy infantry is always at a disadvantage to good ol' heavy cavalry. Just check out Wikipedia or an encyclopedia about the Battle of Adrianople. The Goths really handed the Romans their butts in that fight.

where did you get those things above your sig, that say Captain america fan...or hulk fan and all that huh.gif


--------------------

Points:

"The first shot rang out from somewhere and I heard a bullet wiz by my face. With my pump action shotgun ready, I shoot the first fool I see."

Grano's so gangster.
Top
hamboy
Posted: Mar 19 2008, 08:14 PM


Unregistered









QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Mar 19 2008, 08:06 PM)

where did you get those things above your sig, that say Captain america fan...or hulk fan and all that huh.gif

Click on one of the bars. They come with a link.
Only through funky mojo can mine be animated





































(And also because I can't remember how I did it.)
Top
Wingman
Posted: Mar 20 2008, 01:07 PM


I'm better than you. That's all I know.


Group: Admin
Posts: 2,439
Member No.: 14
Joined: 11-January 08



QUOTE (hamboy @ Mar 19 2008, 03:14 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Mar 19 2008, 08:06 PM)

where did you get those things above your sig, that say Captain america fan...or hulk fan and all that  huh.gif

Click on one of the bars. They come with a link.
Only through funky mojo can mine be animated

(And also because I can't remember how I did it.)

Hey hamboy, what's your take on this fight?


--------------------
"Never in the course of human history has so much been owed by so many to so few."- Winston Churchill, commenting on the heroic struggles of the RAF against the German Luftwaffe.

----
I don't smoke, I don't chew... and I don't date girls who do.

----

War produces classic remarks by military commanders; on February 26, 1991, the US 1st Armored Division, the famous Big Red One, encountered the allegedly elite Iraqi Republican Guard. The divisional commander, Major General Ronald Griffiths, radioed his deputy, who was riding with the armored spearhead. "I understand we are engaging the Medina Division?" he said, referring to one of the crack Iraqi Guard divisions. "Negative, sir," came the reply. "We are destroying the Medina Division."
Great proof that despite their quantity, the Soviet tanks that NATO planners feared above all else could be shredded by the M1 Abrams, Challenger 2, Leopard 2, LeClerc, Ariete, and Merkava with ease. Patton would be proud.

Top
hamboy
Posted: Mar 20 2008, 05:19 PM


Unregistered









QUOTE (Wingman @ Mar 20 2008, 01:07 PM)

Hey hamboy, what's your take on this fight?

I like history, but my knowledge of it is pretty much limited to school education, and we havn't done the Mongels. Hopefull, we get to do it next year, when I start college (I got the acceptence letter in the mail todat. Yay!).
Top
hamboy
Posted: Mar 20 2008, 05:25 PM


Unregistered









Also Wingman, I have a feeling that you would have liked this.
It's a UK show that has been canceled, but if you can find it on-line, I think you would enjoy it.
Top
« Next Oldest | Non-Fiction | Next Newest »
zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Register Now

Topic OptionsPages: (2) [1] 2 



Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.0674 seconds · Archive