# Huns vs Mongols



## theletch1 (Jul 31, 2005)

After a day of being a couch potatoe and watching the history channel series Barbarians all day long I thought I'd post a thread in the same vein as the critter vs critter threads that have come up lately.

If the Huns of the 5th century were to meet the Mongols of Ghengis Khans time who do you think would have fared better?


----------



## Blindside (Jul 31, 2005)

I have got to go with the guy who built the largest land empire in history, Genghis/Temujin.  The Huns fighting strategy and mobility would be very similar to the Mongols, I just think the Mongols showed better organization and had 800 years of military history to adopt/steal/borrow advancing military technology.  Heck, I'd bet on the mongol military in any pre-gunpowder land battle against anyone, without much worry of losing my money.

lamont


----------



## Kane (Jul 31, 2005)

The Huns are far less organized and advanced as the Mongols. It is true the the Hun are basicly the people who ended the acient times, destroyed the 4 great empires, but it really was because the world powers were in declince. For example Rome when it was sacked by the Huns were only at a mere shadow of their former glory. If it was Rome at 0 AD vs the Huns the Romans would own the Huns.

 However the Mongols I am sure would give Rome a run for their money against if Rome survived to fight the Mongols. The Mongols like the earlier Romans had superior tactics against anyone the faced. Too bad they did not have the rulling skill of the Romans, then their giant empire could have lasted for thousands of years!

 The Mongols are also blaimed for the hault of Islamic advancment in society. The same was going to happen in Europe if Ogedai Kahn didn't "drink" himself to the death (or so the legend says), otherwise the tradition of going back to choose a new leader would have never been pursued.

 So yea the Mongols take this one. Here is a better match;

 Rome at its height of its power vs Mongols under either of the first to Kahns


----------



## SwedishChef (Aug 1, 2005)

I have a grandfather who claimed his mother was mongolian.  Whatever!!! Lying drunken Swede.  But just in case I vote Mongol.


----------



## Gemini (Aug 1, 2005)

The Mongols. Their speed, versitility, verocity and tactics were more than a match for anyone in their day. Against a force fighting with methods, weapons and tactics that were several hundreds of years old would have been a quick fight.


Hmm. Romans at the height of their power v the Mongols....

Again, I have to go with the Mongols. The Romans set the standards for their time. They were innovative and powerful. Their open field tactics and deciplined manner of fighting crushed everyone in their time. When Rome was allowed to dictate the terms of the battle, in most cases, Rome was going to win. Ghengis Khan would hardly have allowed this to happen. I think he would have taken the Romans into the forests and the mountains and picked them apart. An open field battle with the Romans would have been a mistake, even for Khan. He wouldn't have done it.


----------



## Blindside (Aug 1, 2005)

Gemini said:
			
		

> Hmm. Romans at the height of their power v the Mongols....
> 
> Again, I have to go with the Mongols. The Romans set the standards for their time. They were innovative and powerful. Their open field tactics and deciplined manner of fighting crushed everyone in their time. When Rome was allowed to dictate the terms of the battle, in most cases, Rome was going to win. Ghengis Khan would hardly have allowed this to happen. I think he would have taken the Romans into the forests and the mountains and picked them apart. An open field battle with the Romans would have been a mistake, even for Khan. He wouldn't have done it.



Wow, I would completely reverse that....  The early Romans were dominant because of their superior infantry, THEY would be the ones dominating the mountain passes and the forests.  The Mongols were open field combatants, mobility was their hallmark.  Also, the Mongol logistic chain is hurt by woodland and mountain areas, their ponies need LOTS of forage to maintain themselves at combat levels.

Lamont


----------



## Gemini (Aug 1, 2005)

That may well be true, but not from what I've studied about either. (though there is certainly more to know than what I know) Certainly the Mongols moved quickly by horseback but did not always fight on horseback. The arguement of lack of forraging has been brought up before, but given the terrain of Mongolia in the first place one would wonder how they managed to move a force on horseback at all. But they did. The Mongols, very much unlike the Romans, acknowleged and even embraced their enemies weaponry. If it was superior, they incorporated it. They even had armor piercing arrows. The Mongols were constanly outnumbered. The Romans were seldom outnumbered.

The Roman formations that I'm familiar with were all based on open field tactics to allow their large force to move, outmaneuver and dominate their opponents. Though I know of losses that they suffered in the forests, i.e.(Battle of the Teuoburg Forest A.D. 9 in Germania)(Battle of Adrianople, A.D. 378 under Emporer Valens against the Goths), I don't know of any major victories. As for the mountains, Sparticus gave the Romans fits by traveling through the mountains, If he had followed his original plan of going north through the Alps, they never would have caught him. Their attempts to that point were one defeat after another. They trapped his army in the Petelia mountains with two legions only to be completely wiped out. It wasn't until he turned back south and got sandwiched between two armies at Brundisium that he was finally beaten.

I'm fasinated with history but am by no means an authority. I love to learn. Your input is appreciated.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 1, 2005)

Romans>Mongols>Huns.


----------



## Blindside (Aug 1, 2005)

Gemini said:
			
		

> That may well be true, but not from what I've studied about either. (though there is certainly more to know than what I know) Certainly the Mongols moved quickly by horseback but did not always fight on horseback. The arguement of lack of forraging has been brought up before, but given the terrain of Mongolia in the first place one would wonder how they managed to move a force on horseback at all. But they did. The Mongols, very much unlike the Romans, acknowleged and even embraced their enemies weaponry. If it was superior, they incorporated it. They even had armor piercing arrows. The Mongols were constanly outnumbered. The Romans were seldom outnumbered.
> 
> The Roman formations that I'm familiar with were all based on open field tactics to allow their large force to move, outmaneuver and dominate their opponents. Though I know of losses that they suffered in the forests, i.e.(Battle of the Teuoburg Forest A.D. 9 in Germania)(Battle of Adrianople, A.D. 378 under Emporer Valens against the Goths), I don't know of any major victories. As for the mountains, Sparticus gave the Romans fits by traveling through the mountains, If he had followed his original plan of going north through the Alps, they never would have caught him. Their attempts to that point were one defeat after another. They trapped his army in the Petelia mountains with two legions only to be completely wiped out. It wasn't until he turned back south and got sandwiched between two armies at Brundisium that he was finally beaten.
> 
> I'm fasinated with history but am by no means an authority. I love to learn. Your input is appreciated.



The first example that I comes to mind of Republic/Imperial era Roman army (something along the lines of 7 legions) vs. horsemen is the Battle of Carrhae, when a Roman army was essentially annihilated by a mixed force of Parthian heavy and light cavalry.  This army was led by Crassus, the member of the triumvirate who put down Spartacus' rebellion earlier in his career.  He made some major mistakes, but arguably one of them was going too deep into enemy territory and pitting a largely infantry army against troops known for their horse archery.  

I am unfamiliar with examples of major mongol infantry units, or in battles where they were a deciding factor (besides sieges, and that is a different story.)

Lamont


----------



## Gemini (Aug 1, 2005)

Blindside said:
			
		

> The first example that I comes to mind of Republic/Imperial era Roman army (something along the lines of 7 legions) vs. horsemen is the Battle of Carrhae, when a Roman army was essentially annihilated by a mixed force of Parthian heavy and light cavalry. This army was led by Crassus, the member of the triumvirate who put down Spartacus' rebellion earlier in his career. He made some major mistakes, but arguably one of them was going too deep into enemy territory and pitting a largely infantry army against troops known for their horse archery.


Given the enemy we're talking about, I think this supports my argument better than yours.



			
				Blindside said:
			
		

> I am unfamiliar with examples of major mongol infantry units, or in battles where they were a deciding factor (besides sieges, and that is a different story.)
> Lamont


Actually, the siege was the scenario I was thinking of when I posted it. It was only a general statement retoring that they only fought on horseback. Not a claim that they would face a Roman legion in that manner. I apologize for the confusion.

I guess where we disagree is the manner in which the Mongols carried out an attack. You stated "Also, the Mongol logistic chain is hurt by woodland and mountain areas". which is the part I disagree with. The Mongols often fought, though against a single army, in units completely separated from each other on several fronts. That would be much more difficult on an open field. Using the surrounding landscape was essential to their style.


----------



## Blindside (Aug 2, 2005)

> I guess where we disagree is the manner in which the Mongols carried out an attack. You stated "Also, the Mongol logistic chain is hurt by woodland and mountain areas". which is the part I disagree with. The Mongols often fought, though against a single army, in units completely separated from each other on several fronts. That would be much more difficult on an open field. Using the surrounding landscape was essential to their style.



Oh, I see, I'm thinking of the problems for the logistic chain for the Mongols is more of an issue for overall campaigns rather than individual battles.  

I do think we are splitting hairs here, since we are arguing on HOW the Mongols would win. 

Hey Arnisidor, give us some arguments for the Romans to win!

Lamont


----------



## Gemini (Aug 2, 2005)

Blindside said:
			
		

> I do think we are splitting hairs here, since we are arguing on HOW the Mongols would win.


LOL. I think you're right.


----------



## Gene Williams (Aug 2, 2005)

The Mongols were, in fact, conquering the descendants of the Huns when they overran Russia and the Balkans all the way to the Danube. They also defeated a 400,000 strong Muslim force sent by Mohammed to try to contain them. At their peak, the Mongols controlled from the Adriatic to the Danube, and parts of what is now Turkey. Some countries bought them off, but no one really defeated them. They just kind of assimilated into the Russian, Magyar, "Hun" stock. Europe finally became strong enough under Charlemagne and Germany united enough under the Fredericks to protect the European countries from such invasions. The Mongols were some bad dudes.


----------



## Gemini (Aug 3, 2005)

Some good information. Thank you. I have one question though. The way it reads, you're imlying that Charlemagne drove out the Mongols. 

_"Europe finally became strong enough under Charlemagne and Germany united enough under the Fredericks to protect the European countries from such invasions. The Mongols were some bad dudes."_

I'm reading this wrong, correct?


----------



## ave_turuta (Aug 3, 2005)

Gene Williams said:
			
		

> The Mongols were, in fact, conquering the descendants of the Huns when they overran Russia and the Balkans all the way to the Danube. They also defeated a 400,000 strong Muslim force sent by Mohammed to try to contain them. At their peak, the Mongols controlled from the Adriatic to the Danube, and parts of what is now Turkey. Some countries bought them off, but no one really defeated them. They just kind of assimilated into the Russian, Magyar, "Hun" stock. Europe finally became strong enough under Charlemagne and Germany united enough under the Fredericks to protect the European countries from such invasions. The Mongols were some bad dudes.


 Excuse me but this is nonsense. 400,000 strong MUslm force sent by Mohammed??? Where on earth did you get that from???? My goodness!!! Since by the dead of Muhammad in 632 A.D. Islam had not expanded beyond the confines of the Arabian Peninsula, this is nonsensical. Historically, we do not begin to speak f the Mongols until at least the 12th century A.D. more or less. THe Mongols were one of the primary actors in the development of, among other ventures, the Crusades in the Middle East. They razed Baghdad to the ground, and installed different dynasties in what is today Persia and the whole region. For more scholarly accurate information and a beautiful presentation, you can check this site: http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols/
  You can also check: http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols/conquests/conquests.htm 
 Another thing: Huns and Mongols are, historically speaking, not the same people; they might have been related, but historians use "Mongols" specifically to refer to the waves of invasions that began in the 12th century A.D. approx. The key defining moment in Mongol history in the Middle East was the Battle of Ayn Jalut (1260 A.D.) during which Egyptian Mamluk troops defeated the Mongols in a victory of enormous psychological importance, which put an end to Mongol expansion (although not control) in the region. 
    Thank you.


----------



## ave_turuta (Aug 3, 2005)

Gene Williams said:
			
		

> The Mongols were some bad dudes.


 Fortunately, historians do not suscribe to this view any longer. The Mongols were no more destructive than other forces in human history, but they did have a bad rep! Regardless: contemporary chroniclers of the Mongols from the Arab side (like al-Dhahabi) offer glimpses to understand the Mongol military strategy. ALthough historians still argue about the effectiveness of Mongol weaponry (it seems their weapons were very light, but also not necessarily effective in all situations), Mongol successes were mostly predicated on tactic, especifically rapid attacks followed by rapid withdrawals. In static, open field battles (which was the traditon in most of the Middle East and Europe), the Mongols didn't fare that well, as in the example of Ayn Jalut I quoted before. The Mongols had one strategic advantgae over most European and Arab armies, though: while they relied on light cavalry, Euro-Arabs were accostumed to fighting more with infantry units and, in the case of the Crusades (which the MOngols fought) very heavy armors and some cavalry (but not light). Mongols had the upper hand if the encounter was rapid enough; they woudl lose in a siege situations, because European warfare was based on sieges and EUropean siege tactics were superior at the time. So, it really depended on when/where/what we're talking about. Nevertheless, the Mongols were, of course, able to adapt to the new environments they encountered and it is also likely they adapted theirweaponry accordingly to the new situation. 
  A.T.


----------

