How do you think a Roman Legion would fare against the hit and run blitz of a Mongol army? Remember that most of Romes heaviest military defeats came from hit and run harrying tactics (Teutoborg, Boudicca rebellion), where they couldnt get to grips with the enemy. In a pitched battle they were unparalleled. Anything else, they paled.

boudicca defeat lmao

Yep, she took a flying shit on the Romans multiple times before they eventually beat her.

She raided two lightly guarded settlements. When they actually fought the roman army, they lost.

Disagree. You don't dominate the known world for 1200 years without knowing how to deal with cavalry. The Romans either defeated or fought to standstill a number of opponents who mainly fought from horseback. Plus the Romans had their own cavalry. The lesson to learn from major Roman defeats is that their strength flowed from unit cohesion...and mutual support. The legionary in combat only had to worry about the enemy in front of him, because another legionary was protecting his flanks and his rear. ...and that legionary wasn't going to fail to protect him unless he'd been cut down himself. Such was their discipline in battle. But where the Romans got into trouble was when they found themselves in situations where the unit cohesion and mutual support was lost. Which is why desertion and other forms of misbehavior in battle that might threaten that cohesion was so severely punished. They literally had to be more frightened of what would be done to them if they fled, than actually dying in combat. I'm not familiar enough with the campaign against the Picts to speak to what happened against Boudicca, but the disaster that happened at the Battle of Cannae against Hannibal and against the Germanic tribes at Teutoborg has the same root cause: Lost of cohesion. At Cannae it was the tactical genius of Hannibal that maneuvered the Romans into losing it. As the Roman force was eventually surrounded, and (IIRC) forced to fight in a dusty location that made difficult for them to see. So that battle is the only situation that I'm aware of where a Roman force simply broke under the pressure they were put under. It wasn't so much a battle as a slaughter. Teutoborg, OTOH, was an avoidable disaster that was simply the result of incompetent leadership. Legionary tactics require opens space to be maximally effective. So the decision to take a Roman force into a dense forest chasing after an enemy was colossally stupid. It not only gave away every tactical and doctrinal advantage that the Romans had, but it put them in the position of having to fight like their German adversaries, in a situation where those adversaries were allowed to pick the time and location that most advantaged themselves. The disaster was the result of both arrogance and stupidity. They failed to respect their opponents, and the destruction of three legions was the result.

They dealt with conventional Cavalry, sure, but the Mongolians were far from conventional. Cohesion or no, a tight knit Legion simply wouldnt be able to get hold of the Mongolians. The Roman Cavalry would have been no match either. They would have been dispatched with humiliating ease. If the Romans could prevent the Mongolians from utilising their mobility, then it all changes.

The only unique thing about Mongol cavalry was their skill with bows from horseback and the fact that each warrior had several mounts. While the additional horses allowed the to cover more distance, faster than traditional cavalry their tactics would have been of limited value against a professional, highly disciplined fighting force like a Roman legion. Their arrows would have had difficulty against the Roman [i]testudo[/i] (shield wall), and Roman discipline would have made them resistant to Mongol terror tactics. The Mongols were a perfect match of tactics, terrain, and opponents. Remove any part of that formula and their success diminishes dramatically. Where as the Roman formula was based on adaptability, and discipline.

You seem to be forgetting all the technology they looted from defeated foes. They had more up their sleeves than just horseback archery.

Just because you have access to something doesn’t always mean they’ll use it. Even when they had access to these weapons (whatever they may be) they primarily chose to fight with bows on horseback. And, by that same logic, the romans has access to more of this captured weaponry, they had fought all over Europe and the Middle East and North Africa. All it takes is a simple flank around with any sort of legionary unit or a quick hit with heavy cavalry and it wouldn’t matter what happened, half the mongol force is gone. The bowmen on horseback was probably the only tactic the romans never faced. They’ve fought heavy and light Calvary; they’d fought basically everything from that time. Experienced soldiers trained for every scenario vs a nomadic pack of horsemen with bows… at least an even battle if not an overwhelmingly Roman victory.

The Persians also got conquered by the Macedonians, who got stompted by the Romans.

Yep. Alexander the Great was a tactical genius and was able to dismantle the Persian empire with what was almost a laughable small force by comparison. (His exploits make those of Napoleon look like the kiddie end of the pool by comparison) He sort of represented a transition point between the phalanx of classical Greece and the legion of Roman times.

He was a tactical genius, but the Pesians constantly underestimated him.