NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, the Incan Empire, at the height of its size, population, and military prowess, winds up border-to-border with the Roman Empire at the height of its size, population, and military prowess. For some reason the two nations suddenly declare war upon the other and will not halt their campaigns until one or the other surrenders.

Who would win?

Incan's would lose they don't even have metal armor or weapons.

The Romans would brutally pwn the Incas. They had siege weaponry, advanced tactics and superior weapons.

Fully armoured legionary Vs. feather-clad Inca with a glass sword-club.

if i had to do something like this i would ask

Rome or Alexanders Empire?

Rome would end up with a nice chunk of real estate on the coast of South America. Inca would develop the idea of Guerilla Warfare. Casualties would be enormous.

Okay, the Incan Empire, at the height of its size, population, and military prowess, winds up border-to-border with the Roman Empire at the height of its size, population, and military prowess. For some reason the two nations suddenly declare war upon the other and will not halt their campaigns until one or the other surrenders.

Who would win?
Obviously, the Romans would win. The Inca were smarter and had much more to offer for the advancement of human civilization. The Romans were bigger and dumber and had a better understanding of how economics could suppress a majority of the populace. (It's pretty easy to convince people to join your side when the alternative is being murdered/starved to death). Their legacy lives on to this day.

Rome would end up with a nice chunk of real estate on the coast of South America. Inca would develop the idea of Guerilla Warfare. Casualties would be enormous.
I don't think so. The romans were quite good at incorporating new people into their empire.

After the first Roman sneezes, the Incas are doomed, regardless of their military prowess.

if i had to do something like this i would ask

Rome or Alexanders Empire?
Rome. At the height of their power, the Romans knew how to defeat the phalanx.

How about Qin Dynasty vs. Rome?

How about Qin Dynasty vs. Rome?
Now that's interesting! They should be quite equal in strength. I guess we would end up with a stalemate, like the one between the Romans and the Parthians.

Romans out of those two.
However if Rome had to divert its Legions to this conflict the other areas of the Empire would rebel and so Anatolia or the Parthians would win.

if you want me to pick out of those two
Romans
Artillary
Solid Hacking Formations
More Cavalry*

VS the mongolian empire, the romans would lose,

The closest to the mongol tactics that the romans faced were the parthians, who kicked the romans butts, (in particular, the horse archer tactics)

Ghenghis khan would of sacked rome within months, and his great gradson would of, if he didnt drink himself to death.

the roman empire hands down, with the superior arms, armor,disciplin and tactics.

I have one better. Imagine a world in which the Aztec Empire could not be conquered and had to be dealt with as a legitimate nation by the European powers.

Would they have given up human sacrifices before the American South gave up slavery?

VS the mongolian empire, the romans would lose,

The closest to the mongol tactics that the romans faced were the parthians, who kicked the romans butts, (in particular, the horse archer tactics)

Ghenghis khan would of sacked rome within months, and his great gradson would of, if he didnt drink himself to death.


that would depend entirely on who was in charge of the roman empire and wether or not its forces were tied up fighting on another campaign.

that would depend entirely on who was in charge of the roman empire and wether or not its forces were tied up fighting on another campaign.

If the Emppire was at the height of its powers, then we would assume that the best Emperor would be in charge.

But the Mongols would easily beat the Romans. If they were being led by Genghis, or Saboudai.

If the Emppire was at the height of its powers, then we would assume that the best Emperor would be in charge.

But the Mongols would easily beat the Romans. If they were being led by Genghis, or Saboudai.

http://www.loyno.edu/~seduffy/MapImages/MongolEmpire-display.jpg

vs

http://www.uwm.edu/People/danielz/Roman%20Empire%20Scavenger%20Hunt_files/image004.jpg


how many civilised countries capable of millitary worth were near roam? quite a few, Persia, Greece, Carthage. Germania, Gaul...how many near or in the mongolian empire?, about 3, Look at the size of the mongolian empire! its huge! but it only became huge because between Moscow and peking there really isnt much in their way... comparing the two is like comparing Britains Empire or modern America to the Mongolian Empire.... its not a fair footing, Unsporting, and onesided. Rome had far more complications with rivals and lead based pots to oppose a vast tribe of nomadic horsemen. Given the choice of being a roman centurian (villa, Wine, Women,riches) or Upper class tribesman under genghis ( Women look like men, Poor food, lots of treasure but nothing to pend it on and living in a yurt..) What would you choose?

Good point. However, I think it might be inconclusive, or in Mongolia's favor, as horsemen can deal more damage to ground infantry by having only to hit down, while infantry have to expend more energy to hit targets above them. Plus, the Mongols could shoot arrows while on horseback. They were also able to live off their horses, sucking blood spots, and drinking mare's milk. Short-range hunting would provide additional sustenance.

I definitely think that a battle between the Mongols and the Romans would have been extremely brutal and gruesome. Both had excellent tactics and combat experience. However, I would rather be a Roman. Their lifestyle was much more extravagent and homelier.

Cool thing though, the Mongols used silk shirts under their armor so that if an arrow pierced through, you could spin the silk strands and it would pull the arrow out in the same way it came in, making sure you don't increase the wound. The silk would also help clot the wound.

http://www.loyno.edu/~seduffy/MapImages/MongolEmpire-display.jpg

vs

http://www.uwm.edu/People/danielz/Roman%20Empire%20Scavenger%20Hunt_files/image004.jpg


how many civilised countries capable of millitary worth were near roam? quite a few, Persia, Greece, Carthage. Germania, Gaul...how many near or in the mongolian empire?, about 3, Look at the size of the mongolian empire! its huge! but it only became huge because between Moscow and peking there really isnt much in their way... comparing the two is like comparing Britains Empire or modern America to the Mongolian Empire.... its not a fair footing, Unsporting, and onesided. Rome had far more complications with rivals and lead based pots to oppose a vast tribe of nomadic horsemen. Given the choice of being a roman centurian (villa, Wine, Women,riches) or Upper class tribesman under genghis ( Women look like men, Poor food, lots of treasure but nothing to pend it on and living in a yurt..) What would you choose?
Bad food? Did Genghis Khan not invent Mongo's (http://www.mongos.de/)? ;)

Bad food? Did Genghis Khan not invent Mongo's (http://www.mongos.de/)? ;)


Genghis: And too my great and powerfull son i leave my vast empire and armies, to my daughter i leave my riches and to my youngest son tarquin, i leave my resturant chainwith the staff who wear matching hats...

Oh, and on a more serious note, be fair to the timeframe. If I'm not mistaken, the Mongols reached their height chronologically later than the Romans did.

If the Eastern Romans (Byzantines) were able to mimic the cavalry forces they faced with their own cataphracts, Greek fire, and other ingenuity, then can we assume that a Roman Empire at its height would have been able to evolve militarily if it faced initial Mongol defeats?

The discussion is fun, but there's something confounding about it. For instance, we could argue that the Romans at the height of their power could have beaten the Germanic barbarians that helped do them in eventually.

However, we could then say that the Deutsch at the height of THEIR power could have EASILY crushed the Romans at the height of theirs, considering Mussolini's 'Second Roman Empire' was clearly the modern equivalent (insert sarcasm).

So I suppose you can't really do much accounting for timeframe equality. Though it is entertaining that the Inca reached their height later than the Romans and Mongols, yet their military technology was... yeah.

The Inca's military technology was about equal to Egypt circa 4000 BC. They would lose. There would be no guerilla war either as the agricultural and medical technology just didn't allow people to survive for long enough to mount such a campaign let alone be healthy enough to do any damage.

The Romans by a mile but not on tactics or military technology. Not to knock the Roman's advancements in those areas but that's not what made Rome successful. Rome wins onn enfranchisement. All Roman conquests had the option of a term of military service in exchange for full citizenship. The Mongols at their most benign treated all conquered people as subordinate feifedoms. And the Aztecs comquests that were'nt killed could look forward to being virtual slaves. That's how Rome got as big as it got and lasted as long as it did becasue every Roman conquest produced more Romans. Someone brought up guerilla warfare? Mongol, Aztec and Greek (or Macadonian or wherever you want to class Alexander) would be more likely to provoke that reaction than the Romans.

Wow, a vs thread in NS!

I have to go with the Romans here as well. They just had the war experience, superior materials technology, formation tactics, support, engineering, artillery, discipline. They were a society built out of war, on war. The Incans in comparison were not; for them the only victory is in staving off the Romans, they had no hope at all of conquering them. And just fending them off will be damned hard with irregular infantry. They might give the Romans a few surprises or ambushes, depending on terrain of course, but ultimately lose and become new Roman auxilliaries.

Rome could not beat the Parthians but the Parthians had the footsoldiers to really back up their horsemen which the Mongols tended to lack IIRC.

All Rome's battles with Parthia ended in stalemates and withdrawals (Mark Anthony, for example) or in total disaster (3 Aquilas lost that Augustus had to get back by diplomacy).

With Rome's best generals the Mongols would be in trouble, the Romans lacked cavalry for much of their existence but their infantry were very capable indeed.

Good point. However, I think it might be inconclusive, or in Mongolia's favor, as horsemen can deal more damage to ground infantry by having only to hit down, while infantry have to expend more energy to hit targets above them. Plus, the Mongols could shoot arrows while on horseback. They were also able to live off their horses, sucking blood spots, and drinking mare's milk. Short-range hunting would provide additional sustenance.

I definitely think that a battle between the Mongols and the Romans would have been extremely brutal and gruesome. Both had excellent tactics and combat experience. However, I would rather be a Roman. Their lifestyle was much more extravagent and homelier.

Cool thing though, the Mongols used silk shirts under their armor so that if an arrow pierced through, you could spin the silk strands and it would pull the arrow out in the same way it came in, making sure you don't increase the wound. The silk would also help clot the wound.


I think you are correct, but not for the reasons cited. Rule #1 about fighting cavalry is that you aim for the horses, not the rider, so hitting high isn't really all that big a problem. That being said, cavalry has the option of picking when and where to fight, which is usually in a position that the infantry is naturally divided.

Really, though, the big reason why the Mongols would win is because their technology was vastly superior. The Mongol recurved short bow was the best ranged weapon of the Middle Ages, capable of generating even more force than the Welsh longbow that crushed French heavy cavalry at Agincourt and Crecy. Against the inferior splint armor of the Romans, the Mongol archers would have cut through their infantry like Reuben Studdard through a buffet.

Of course, this does play into the fact that tactics and technology had all vastly changed in the years spanning the gulf between Rome's height and Mongol supremacy. Were they given comparable technology, I'd be willing to bet that Rome would have won, because Rome had a far superior transportation and logistics network, as well as a series of excellent generals like Pompey, Julius Caesar, and Scipio Africanus that are each quite the match for Genghis or Kublai Khan on the battlefield.

the Romans would win, because their army was much more flexible, and technologically advanced, than the Incas. They most likely wouldn't have even had to fall back on their auxiliary troops to provide them with the dynamism that made the Roman empire so fearsome, as in a clash of infantry, the roman manipular heavy infantry system would have forced the Incas to fight on their own terms.

Mongols would own the Romans.
The Romans couldnt handle Parthian Tactics and a hit in run always screwed them.

I have one better. Imagine a world in which the Aztec Empire could not be conquered and had to be dealt with as a legitimate nation by the European powers.

Would they have given up human sacrifices before the American South gave up slavery?
That’s the tutorial in Empire Earth 2. The Aztecs repel the first Spainish conquistadors, so they decide it isn’t worth it. Over time, the Aztecs master European technology, ally with the USA after they break from Britain, and defeat the Incas in WWII when they side with Germany. :eek:

It didn't mention the sacrafices, though.

http://www.loyno.edu/~seduffy/MapImages/MongolEmpire-display.jpg

vs

http://www.uwm.edu/People/danielz/Roman%20Empire%20Scavenger%20Hunt_files/image004.jpg


how many civilised countries capable of millitary worth were near roam? quite a few, Persia, Greece, Carthage. Germania, Gaul...how many near or in the mongolian empire?, about 3, Look at the size of the mongolian empire! its huge! but it only became huge because between Moscow and peking there really isnt much in their way... comparing the two is like comparing Britains Empire or modern America to the Mongolian Empire.... its not a fair footing, Unsporting, and onesided. Rome had far more complications with rivals and lead based pots to oppose a vast tribe of nomadic horsemen. Given the choice of being a roman centurian (villa, Wine, Women,riches) or Upper class tribesman under genghis ( Women look like men, Poor food, lots of treasure but nothing to pend it on and living in a yurt..) What would you choose?

You also must remember that the Rome existed as an Empire for onver 400 years, whereas the Mongol Empire only existed for 162 years. I'm not saying Rome would win for sure, I'd have to think about it more, but this is a point that is often forgotten.

As for Rome vs Incas . . . clearly Rome.

Rome vs Mongol, clearly the Mongol's. An interesting debate would be if the technology between the two were equal.

The Romans by a mile but not on tactics or military technology. Not to knock the Roman's advancements in those areas but that's not what made Rome successful. Rome wins onn enfranchisement. All Roman conquests had the option of a term of military service in exchange for full citizenship.


I can't believe I just noticed this! Actually, that's incorrect, in the main. The Roman Republic, which expanded greatly, and established rome as the mediterranean superpower, did not have this, as it worked on a citizens militia system. To expand, what this means is that only citizens could join, and the "allies" were italians, people who were already citizens of Rome, but had advantages, such as in their cavalry, which the romans utilised. Their "auxiliaries", such as they were, did not have the ability to become citizens, as they were disbanded when the war was over. The situation only changed when the Roman principate (That's the Empire) came to be, and the Roman conquests were large enough as to necessitate a professional, permanent standing army.

Well I was assuming it was at the zeinith of Roman Power which would be the latter Empire. Someone else stayed awake in Western Civ. eh?

Ah, of course. I was just pointing out that Rome did expand a LOT without its generous, and comparatively progressive citizenship system, gaining footholds in Spain, Africa, taking Greece and a tiny chunk of Asia minor, as well as the Alpine Gallic regions. These were taken by the advanced nature of the Roman military system, and the fact that they specifically designed their legions to take a hoplite army to pieces, which allowed them to smash the hellenic states with great ease. Remember that the Romans were one of the more flexible armies, contrary to popular belief. when they came across an enemy that could beat them, they simply stole their tactics, romanised them, and turned it back on the foe.


(And no, I don't think western civ is a course in Scotland. I'm just an amateur enthusiast.)

I think you are correct, but not for the reasons cited. Rule #1 about fighting cavalry is that you aim for the horses, not the rider, so hitting high isn't really all that big a problem. That being said, cavalry has the option of picking when and where to fight, which is usually in a position that the infantry is naturally divided.

Really, though, the big reason why the Mongols would win is because their technology was vastly superior. The Mongol recurved short bow was the best ranged weapon of the Middle Ages, capable of generating even more force than the Welsh longbow that crushed French heavy cavalry at Agincourt and Crecy. Against the inferior splint armor of the Romans, the Mongol archers would have cut through their infantry like Reuben Studdard through a buffet.

Of course, this does play into the fact that tactics and technology had all vastly changed in the years spanning the gulf between Rome's height and Mongol supremacy. Were they given comparable technology, I'd be willing to bet that Rome would have won, because Rome had a far superior transportation and logistics network, as well as a series of excellent generals like Pompey, Julius Caesar, and Scipio Africanus that are each quite the match for Genghis or Kublai Khan on the battlefield.


What youve all failed to mention as well is. the fact mongolian armies could and did travel up to 100 miles a day, faster then even a modern army! they would be at the gates of rome before the emporer even knew they were at war,,,

Ghengis also is considered the father of blitzkrieg, only substitute tanks with cavelry, the notian of horse archers pissing off the enemie and staying out of there arrow range (comparable to air strikes) and then the heavy cavalry, which at the time was invicible under the right general, is comparable to huge heavy, fast panzer units ,

Finally with infantry moppin up the rest, compariblt to, hey, infantry!

And, the way ghengis organisded units, eg in units of 10, 10 was a squad, 100 a company, 1000 a division, 10000 a brigade, etc etc. Most modern armies are matched around this.

By comparison, modern warfare hasnt taken much from the romans, sure we have the tactics (hannibals tactics have just been used in iraQ) but the mongols technoligy wise, logistical wise and tactics wise were by far one of the best best in history,

And on an equal playing field, would of slaugtered the romans, they slaughtered the persians. oh, and they were one of the first civilisations to use gunpowder as a weapon, they stole it from the chinese.

I went to mongolia recently , on a horse abck holiday, i reccomend you go if you can, people live exackly how they did when ghenghis was alive, fascinating to see them hunt with a bow on horse back, though now they normally use guns.


EDIT: the mongols had 2 weaknesses, A.. you needed a great leader, or it woudent work , B> the needed grass. They didnt need food, just grass.

They would get there horses to eat the grass, milk them, and mix it with the horses blood, and drink it, this weakness prevented them from penetrating furthor in to the middle east

No Western Civ in Scotland? But y'all are over there where it actually happened. Us yanks just inherited a lot of it. Did you know that there's another MMORPG on Jolt that is set in London during the Roman occupation? Not very historically accurate but it passess the time....

No Western Civ in Scotland? But y'all are over there where it actually happened. Us yanks just inherited a lot of it. Did you know that there's another MMORPG on Jolt that is set in London during the Roman occupation? Not very historically accurate but it passess the time....


Rom total war is the best roman game, proberbly best game ever made!

Okay, the Incan Empire, at the height of its size, population, and military prowess, winds up border-to-border with the Roman Empire at the height of its size, population, and military prowess. For some reason the two nations suddenly declare war upon the other and will not halt their campaigns until one or the other surrenders.

Who would win?I'd say the Romans. They had slightly superior tactics, iron, and the wheel.
The tactics and iron would have proven efficient in the battle field while the wheel allows for a rapid transportation of heavy loads on the roads built by both empires.

No Western Civ in Scotland? But y'all are over there where it actually happened. Us yanks just inherited a lot of it. Did you know that there's another MMORPG on Jolt that is set in London during the Roman occupation? Not very historically accurate but it passess the time....

No, no, that's [i]England[i]. The Romans built a big wall to stop us beating the crap out of them whenever they strayed too far north. (slight white lie) :D And yes, I've seen the banner advert up at the top on occasion.

morally...... neither,


because, put simply,


there is no honor in empire.

never was, never will be.

As for Rome vs Incas . . . clearly Rome.

Rome vs Mongol, clearly the Mongol's. An interesting debate would be if the technology between the two were equal.
All technology equal, Rome sill wins, as someone else said, “the first time a Roman sneezes.”

ROME, hands down. Apart form the obvious tech differences romans were conqurerer, had better leaders and were just plain cooler!

Rome vs. the Mongols?

Mongols without a shadow of a doubt.

Subetai Ba'taeur was a fantastic general- no noe in the Roman times is comparible- his tactics regarding speed, agility and flexibility are still taught in military tactics today.

Even the lesser general Batu and himself managed to wipe out medievel Europes finest cavalry when they came up against the Hungarians and the Poles at Pecs and Leignitz. This wasn't even with the full invasion force either!

Subetai managed to completely destroy the unified Russian principalities on his 'Great Raid' even though he was outnumbered 3-1!!

Romans would have been dog food with the Mongols tactics of feigning retreat/rout- sucking in the army while picking them off with archers- stringing out the attacking line before the classic pincer move of the hidden side armies closed in. Not a chance.

Even without that, the 'barbarity' of the ruthlessness would have shocked the 'civilised' Romans. Leaving 50 people alive out of a population of 100,000 in one attack.... the Romans would have been running for the hills.

Rome would own the Incas, their military technology was vastly superior to anything the Incan Empire had (armor, superior metallurgy, siege equipment, uniformity of weapons, etc.), their logistics systems were superior, and Rome had cavalry, which the Inca did not. Roman troops were disciplined in a manner similar to a modern military force, and utilized tactics developed by some of the greatest military minds in history, Alexander and Caeser.

No, no, that's [i]England[i]. The Romans built a big wall to stop us beating the crap out of them whenever they strayed too far north. (slight white lie) :D And yes, I've seen the banner advert up at the top on occasion.
Bah, they built the wall for taxation and administration purposes, as well as a fear on the part of Hadrian of overstretch.

Bah, they built the wall for taxation and administration purposes, as well as a fear on the part of Hadrian of overstretch.Another main reason was simply to give the troops something to do.

Rome vs Tawantinsuyu (BTW that's the proper name for the Incan empire): Rome wins on several levels.

1) The same mechanisms that allowed small contengients of conquistidores to defeat the Incas - superior technology and disease.
2) Literate cultures have superior organisational abilities.
3) Rome had cavalry.

As for Rome vs the Mongols, I'd say Mongols mostly due to superior speed and the predominance of horse archery, but it's a much less clear cut contest.

Even without that, the 'barbarity' of the ruthlessness would have shocked the 'civilised' Romans. Leaving 50 people alive out of a population of 100,000 in one attack.... the Romans would have been running for the hills.

What do Carthage, Capua, and Corinth have in common, aside from them all beginning with C?

They were all towns where the romans went from door to door, systematically killing every single civilian, before burning the town to the ground, right to the very foundations.


Rome had fair experience in utterly destroying towns.


Not to mention that you say no Roman era general is comparable... perhaps you forget Hannibal Barca, who, with a vastly outnumbered army (forget 3-1, we're talking a single army marching up and down the Italian peninsular for 10-15 years, with only one batch of reinforcements ever sent.), never lost a battle in that entire campaign, except when the Carthaginian senate demanded he return to face the invading Roman force which was marching through Africa towards Carthage, where his advantages were lost, and his only failing was to consent to fight the battle?

What do Carthage, Capua, and Corinth have in common, aside from them all beginning with C?

They were all towns where the romans went from door to door, systematically killing every single civilian, before burning the town to the ground, right to the very foundations.


Rome had fair experience in utterly destroying towns.

True- they could be quite vicious also. But Gengis almost wiped Islam off the face of the earth when he swept through the Kwarazham Shah- Persia etc. The greatest slaughter of people until possibly Stalin or Mao. Plus, he took down 3 of the greatest empires of the age: China (numerous 'empires' i'll agree but each formidable in their own right), Kwarazham, and Persia, before wheeling West into Europe. An army of 60,000 men ( a pittance considering the overall scale of the Khan's armies) almostsingle handedly took hold of from : Georgia to the Iberian peninsula- had the Khan not died- WORLD history would have been very different.


Not to mention that you say no Roman era general is comparable... perhaps you forget Hannibal Barca, who, with a vastly outnumbered army (forget 3-1, we're talking a single army marching up and down the Italian peninsular for 10-15 years, with only one batch of reinforcements ever sent.), never lost a battle in that entire campaign, except when the Carthaginian senate demanded he return to face the invading Roman force which was marching through Africa towards Carthage, where his advantages were lost, and his only failing was to consent to fight the battle?

I was talking about Roman generals- not necessarily Roman era generals- i was mistaken in that respect when posting.

I still stand by the fact that the mostly infantry based Roman army would have been no match (tactics and weapon wise) for the Mongols. They took out the cream of European cavaly without breaking a sweat. I would not like to have been a Roman legionnare having to get in close to an enemy that could pcik you off from 50-100 yards away and keep that distance. :eek:

I seem to recall the Mongols did lose, eventually.

tell ya what, I'll take the Romans if I get to pick their technological era and where I can defend in Italy. :D

I'd take the Romans in both situations.

They'd beat the Inca because they were technologically superior, and had much better tactics.

They'd eventually beat the mongols because Marcus Aurelius (perhaps their finest leader) would adapt to their tactics. You could argue that Scipio Africanus was better, but why bother?

While everyone is on the Roman Bandwagon, it seems people conveniently overlook one major factor in battles:

Terrain.

Out in an open lowland, the Roman tactics and technology would prove to be a deciding factor. But in Inca country high up in the mountains alongside perilous craggy paths where the air gets thin? Far as I recall, most Roman units were not acclimated to high mountain fighting and so any invading army would find itself tiring out much sooner than expected, especially with all their gears. The native Incas would have a much greater lung capacity and wouldn't be affected in the least.

Also, the craggy mountain paths would not make for effective conventional Roman Army tactics, rather leaving them bottlenecked at best, vulnerable to Inca slingers. And before you dismiss the damage that slingers do, there are historical accounts where Inca clay sling bullets have been known to snap Damascus Steel swords and break Conquistador bones even through their breastplates (I think.)

If the Incas were stupid enough to take on Rome where the Romans fight best it would be suicidal. But if the Romans tried to take on the Incas on home ground... it's not going to be pretty for the legionnaires either.

I seem to recall the Mongols did lose, eventually.


Who did they lose to? They stopped because the Khan died and tradition dictated all generals return to elect a new leader.... waaaaaayyyy back to Quarakorum in Mongolia. Internal political divisions brought the Mongol Empire down- and their first loss was to the Mameluk army in Palestine in the late 13thC (ish)

eventually beat the mongols because Marcus Aurelius (perhaps their finest leader) would adapt to their tactics.

Interesting thought.

Open ground, Romans fought exceptionally well. Unfortunetly, the Mongols fared even better.
Wooded areas, Romans would have the upper hand given the lack of flexibility in the Mongol cavalry.... but then again Varus' defeat in Germany made Romans dislike forests :p

The Mongols would also have used gunpowder/explosives (stolen from the Chinese)- a distinct advantage against the Romans.

Infanty vs. Cavalry (predominantly Cavalry Archers)
=Victory for Cavalry.

Obviously, the Romans would win. The Inca were smarter and had much more to offer for the advancement of human civilization. The Romans were bigger and dumber and had a better understanding of how economics could suppress a majority of the populace. (It's pretty easy to convince people to join your side when the alternative is being murdered/starved to death). Their legacy lives on to this day.
That's the weirdest racist statement I've ever read.

*shameless Brit-centric joke for people of a certain age*

I'd go for the Brittas Empire myself. Gordon's experience of running that leisure centre would be invaluable as he wore down the Roman, Mongol and Inca invaders.

That's the weirdest racist statement I've ever read.

Inelegantly phrased, to be fair, but at the same time with a kernel of truth to it. The Romans were proud of their "practical" nature, and more apt to act "brutish" (odd etymology question, does that and brute come from brutus?), get the job done types. They were very enamoured of the cult of Sparta and it's similar nature, and not too fond of the Athenian experience.

Really, though, the big reason why the Mongols would win is because their technology was vastly superior. The Mongol recurved short bow was the best ranged weapon of the Middle Ages, capable of generating even more force than the Welsh longbow that crushed French heavy cavalry at Agincourt and Crecy. Against the inferior splint armor of the Romans, the Mongol archers would have cut through their infantry like Reuben Studdard through a buffet.


Ever heard of the 'Tortoise'?

I'd say the Romans would win, because the Mongols only real edge was their cavalry, and you cannot win a large scale battle on cavalry alone. Assuming this battle was taking place at the height of both nations, I think the Romans would have adapted and won. They had archers and cavalry of their own, and while the reflex bow was indeed a great weapon, the Roman infantry was trained to defend against arrows.

Ever heard of the 'Tortoise'?

I'd say the Romans would win, because the Mongols only real edge was their cavalry, and you cannot win a large scale battle on cavalry alone. Assuming this battle was taking place at the height of both nations, I think the Romans would have adapted and won. They had archers and cavalry of their own, and while the reflex bow was indeed a great weapon, the Roman infantry was trained to defend against arrows.

They did just that..... repeatedly. Acrosss the known world... amassing the greatest empire on earth... EVER.

They did just that..... repeatedly. Acrosss the known world... amassing the greatest empire on earth... EVER.


I believe the mongols won their large scale battles through divide and conquer. The Romans were exactly the type to fall for that, being typically agressive to the last. One should remember that the Romans only lost ground consistently to the Parthians, who used horse archer tactics. However, it should also be noted that the Parthians did not over-run the Roman Empire in the region.


It's quite likely that given the resources, and superior fortification/engineering capabilities of the Romans, that they could withstand a mongolian onslaught. Mongols, aside from any Chinese they brought with them, would likely be incapable of breaching a roman stronghold. That and the legionary auxilia, containing archers, would be able to fire back at the Mongols.


The battle would probably be dependent on actual field factors, and not an inherent advantage to the armies.

They did just that..... repeatedly. Acrosss the known world... amassing the greatest empire on earth... EVER.

Here's another reason why I'd give it to the Romans. (Assuming that they were not preoccupied with fighting the Germanic tribes, and assuming that the Mongols would be invading Roman territory.)

The Romans would be defending.

This would mean that the Romans would have only short distances to travel when it came to supply lines and reinforcements. The Mongols however would have to rely on pillaging in order to keep thier supplies up, and they couldn't afford to lose battles nor men because they were poor in logistics and had few spare troops (at best half as many soldiers in almost all major battles than their enemies, and travelling far away from their homeland).

This meant that the Romans (assuming there was no other foe diverting their attention), would be able to throw massive waves of troops at the Mongols, and have strong defensive positions to fall back on. Granted, the Mongols had siege weaponry as well, but I would place my money on the Romans to take the cake if it came to laying siege to a Roman fortification.

Mongols didn't favor close combat but rather preferred to fight from a distance with their bows and long-practiced marksmanship from horses. The Romans, using the 'Tortoise' tactic, would render this slightly ineffective, especially if Roman archers were thrown in the Tortoise to return fire. With support from archers, Greek fire, ballistas, and other weapons, the Mongol cavalry would probably be diced to pieces once they got in close.

Some might disagree, but Roman technology and strategy would have won the day.

Now, assuming that the Romans were entering Mongolian territory, NOW you open up a different can of worms.

The battle would probably be dependent on actual field factors, and not an inherent advantage to the armies.

True (you posted just as I was typing).

This is something that we could argue forever, but could only be solved if the scenario actually played out. It would be a hell of an event to watch.

The Incans wouldn't stand a chance. Romans had excellent organization, experience, and technology.

romans would win, in all situations...

O.K. uhh... the Inca didn't even discover the wheel...

Incas Vs Roman no second though the Romans

Mongols vs Romans mm Probably the Mongols in the Early battles but in the End They wouldf have to end up as Foot Soldiers as the Huns had to become due to the Nature of the Land of Europe at the Time no vast plains for their horses

The Mongols are a different league then the Huns, though. The Mongols work as a team. Anyone in their army leaving another soldier is placed with the penalty of death, they have massive ambush co-ordinations, their siege weaponry is from Ancient China (as well as the wealth, meaning they have a massive backing), and as for an Empire, Genghis Kahn made an extremely safe empire. Brutally controlling, but safe.

It was rumoured that during the height of Kahn's empire, a woman could walk alone safely on the trade routes.

The Romans were made to face very different foes. They were trained to fight large masses of fanatical and untrained infantrymen, while the Mongols were trained to face heavy fortifications and enemy cavalry.

As for this, though, I'd say the Mongols, but a surprise bombardment from the sea could slow them down quite easily (Constantinople).

ohh What about Mongols Vs the Anglo-Welsh Army of Henry V purelly one on one Encounter

Well, it's really unfair to compare the Romans to the Mongols, seeing as how the Mongols came far later and were allowed to develop more advanced military technology.

My money would be on Henry V. The Welsh archers would have steadier footing and better aim than even the best horse archers, plus longer range. If the Mongols decided to charge then we all know what happens to horsemen that charge against Henry V's archers.....

pfft no competition, romans would definatley win. That is assuming that they would be able to navigate to the incas.

True (you posted just as I was typing).

This is something that we could argue forever, but could only be solved if the scenario actually played out. It would be a hell of an event to watch.


True- i agree also. And it would be one HELL of a battle/campaign to witness objectively. Ah... history... :p

Everyone that sides against Rome here has forgotten that Rome fell because of no outside enemy alone. Inability to stabilise the economy, please the citizens, and maintain order led to chaos among the Romans themselves. At the point a marching army of three cripples could have defeated Rome. At its height, Rome was invincible.

O.K. uhh... the Inca didn't even discover the wheel...

I think you are wrong. Many people don't know this, but Incas and Aztecs did knew the wheel. Aztecs used it in children toys and Incas used it with cars, pulled by llamas...