Don't have a clue who would win, although I think the Romans would have an edge on administration and engineering. With Julius Caesar at the helm of the Legion it would be interesting.

As far as individual skill though. I saw a mongolian cavalryman ride by at full gallop and peg six targets, didn't even look like the barrel of his rifle bounced with the movement.

The Mongols are entirely overrated, like pretty much every steppe "empire". They were defeated by more than just the Mamluks. How did their invasion of Japan work out? How about their incursions into Vietnam? Basically any naval battle whatsoever resulted in defeat for the Mongols. They also had problems with fortified cities, which the Song were good at. The Mongols won because their opponents were weak. If you're going to belittle Ain Jalut then why give credit to any of the Mongol victories over weak and divided opponents. Had the Mongol Empire fought the Han Dynasty they would have gotten their asses handed to them. Instead they fought a country at war with itself. Ditto the Russians. Would the Mongols had won if the Kievan Rus hadn't disintegrated prior to the Khan's invasion? Hell the Mongols got their asses beat by a tiny Russian town called Kozelsk. How can any army beat the Roman Empire which has this as a record.

Mongels two attempted invasions of Japan was thwarted by the "divine wind"

"They also had problems with fortified cities, which the Song were good at."

Yeah that's what I was saying about Rome, I think this would be one of their biggest strengths.

And though Putin may be right that the Mongols wouldn't exactly trounce a lot of the groups we say they would, it's hard to overrate the most successful military force ever. Indeed, the Mongolian army was the fastest military force in terms of ability to cover ground until modern times with tanks.

The Mongols may have seen a few defeats, but in general they knew what the heck they were doing. Which is not something you can say for a lot of militaries of the past.

The Han vs. Rome question is much more interesting. Someone else mentioned this earlier.

The empire that conquered all of China, the entirety of Central Asia, Afghanistan, Iran, all of European Russia and Hungary, and whose descendants conquered all of India are entirely overrated. Got it. Just something that all entirely overrated military's and administrative bureaucracies were able to do. Right.

Ahhh Putin, don't bash the Mongols for the failed invasion of Japan. It was Koreans manning those boats lol.

But you do strike a point in that they had trouble when attacking fortified towns and when attacking in heavily wooded areas. However, weren't Samarkand and Baghdad both fortified cities? As I recall, both were sacked in pretty short order. And the Rus princes could have handled them, I agree, but only if they didn't try to fight the battle on the steppes of the Ukraine like they did.

@Emac - the Mughals conquered India through diplomacy. Read more about Akbar. He won many battles, yes, but he was good at creating divisions amongst his enemies and the fact that his first wife (and supposedly the only one he loved) was a Hindu made him easier to tolerate among the local populations - you know, because he didn't try to force anyone to convert.

I'd like to point out that this match up would probably never happen, since Mongols apparently didn't take on forces stronger than themselves. Or rather the engagement would probably end with the Mongols disengaging.

The Mongol's strength lied in their strategic planning and maneuverability. Not only did Rome have generals that could rival those of the Mongols, they had a sophisticated road system that would have allowed for their legions to be steadily supplied while being able to outmaneuver any of the Mongol's flanks.

If the Mongols were invading the Roman Empire, they would be obliterated, scattered, and dissolved. If the Romans were in a distant outpost or in a vassal's land, they might have some difficulty. In order for the Mongols to win, I think it would have to come down to the competence of the Roman general, the terrain, and the location. Maybe if Rome was having an off-day, and it was a flatland area miles and miles from a Roman city, then a Mongol horde might be able to defeat them. But the Romans weren't dumb enough to fight a battle that they didn't have a fair chance at. They would make the circumstances work for them. Rome would easily win.

Well, KA, depends on which general of Rome you're talking about lol. Many a Roman general lost a legion fighting battles they should never have gotten into

"However, weren't Samarkand and Baghdad both fortified cities? As I recall, both were sacked in pretty short order."

In the case of Samarkand half the army defending it attempted a counterattack against the retreating Mongols, and were defeated in the open field. I will give the Mongols great credit for the use of deception, not only in combat but in diplomacy. Although look at what happened in Otrar. Otrar had large numbers of deserters, and still held out for five months. As for Baghdad, the caliphate was torn apart by internal divisions between two of its leaders, and divided by sectarian strife. Preparations were not made to strengthen its defenses. Also the Mongols had a huge army for that particular undertaking, about 150,000 as compared to 75,000 for the defenders.

Why are Romans getting free pass with their enemies when Mongols do not? They never breezed through any enemy of similar strength. It took them 60 years to break the might of Carthage, which was not even a land military focused power (and it doesn't matter anyway since we're talking 1st century BC Roman army to artificially inflate their prowess). They never subjugated Parths. That's it. That's all the worthy opposition they ever faced compared to themselves. Greeks were shot by the time Romans focused on them. Pontus and Numidia were pushovers. That's all during the Republic by the way. The Roman Empire in it's heyday never conquered anything like the Song, Khwarezm, Poland, Hungary. They barely managed to DEFEND themselves against Huns (which is on the other hand from time when legions'quality plummeted). Trajans and his mighty legions were not even able to hang onto their conquests in the East. Romans were geared towards beating barbarian infantry and were exceptionally good at it. However, while they conquered many barbaric tribes, Mongols were busy conquering empires and established states. A huge empire beating on tribes compared to a federation of tribes beating empires. A regional behemoth that waged successful wars even with idiots like Nero in charge compared to peoples that were mere nuisance until Temujin united them and stormed everything he could.

Actually, scrap Poland, Mongols didn't conquer it, just utterly pawned its inhabitants.

"The Han vs. Rome question is much more interesting. Someone else mentioned this earlier."

memememememe haha

"Actually, scrap Poland, Mongols didn't conquer it, just utterly pawned its inhabitants."

They didn't conquer Hungary either. They didn't take a single fortified city. They destroyed the population, yes.

"The Roman Empire in it's heyday never conquered anything like the Song, Khwarezm, Poland, Hungary."

Are you kidding? The Celts were a damn strong military power. They dominated western Europe and were a prosperous civilization in Gaul and elsewhere.

I generally don't get why so many people sniff the throne of the Mongols. They were a virus on horseback. They did nothing but lay waste to everything they touched. They make the Nazis look like cute puppies. The enormity of what civilization lost due to the Mongol Hordes is truly staggering. If people are outraged about what is going on in Mali, then that should be multiplied by a billion times when it comes to the bloody Khans.

And no, being efficient at torture and annihilating civilians and cities is not a mark of military prowess.

oh come on the mongols:
* Organised the Silk Road into the largest free-trade zone known to history
* Built a system based on individual merit, loyalty and achievement
* Lowered taxes, and abolished them for doctors, teachers and priests
* established a regular census
* established the first international postal system
* granted religious freedoms within their lands
* abolished torture (although later generations would revert back to it)
* guaranteed diplomatic immunity for ambassadors and envoys - even with those who they were at war with
* created a nation & dynasty in China, unified under Kublai, which included Tibet, Manchuria (Jurched) Tangut (Gobi), & Uighurs (over 3 generations)

I could go on, but does this sound like a virus on horseback? not really.

iam no historical expert but which had the swords and which had the uzi's???
i would say the uzi's would win...

"And no, being efficient at torture and annihilating civilians and cities is not a mark of military prowess."

Isn't it though? You may be confusing military prowess with a good thing. Nukes are also examples of military prowess, and look how horrendous those are.

Putin is a victim of a Russian education system

He's American actually.

They developed the census? Gee isn't that great because practically everywhere they took over the populations were eliminated by at least half, I guess they made it easier to count. Seriously what is wrong with people. The Mongols slayed every living inhabitant of cities that dared to be located in areas which resisted them. One of the greatest civilizations ever, the Persians, were practically wiped off the face of the planet. They need a new word besides 'genocide' to describe the massive slaughter they perpetuated on the peoples of Eurasia. You give them credit for "creating" a nation? How did they 'create it', exactly, by cutting its population to 60 million? By wiping out any traces of old Chinese dynasties? Did they 'help' the Middle East by setting back their food supply systems by centuries? Does the fact that they destroyed some of the the greatest cities in the world - Baghdad, Kiev, Herat, Nishapur, Samarkand, get absolved because they lowered taxes and supposedly invented a postal system?

They had religious freedom? Fantastic. Tell me what good that is when churches mosques, and libraries are burnt down. When literature and sacred landmarks are destroyed.

The populations in Mongol territory actually grew

"resisted" is the key word. They made examples of those who opposed them. Then showed others. I admit the Mongols hated farmers, which most of the population were. The point of the argument is who are the greater war machine. (Putin33 studied under his father?)

The Soviets did more damage to religion and literature in Russia than the Mongols ever did.

Mongols. You asked who would win the battle, not who would achieve the greatest accomplishments. Mongols would run circles, literally, around the Romans. This wouldn't even be close.

@kaner: Totally agree. Also, they created the largest empire ever.
Their tactics - razing cities and slaughtering the population - were quite effective in giving pause for thought to other cities in their path, a useful strategy.
Had the Khan not died, the 3 sons would not have retreated from the borders of Poland to claim their inheritance. They would have easily swept through Germany and France, who were apparently sh*tting bricks.
Hungary is still inhabited by descendants of Mongols and Turks. The Hungarian language is only similar to 2 languages - Turkish and Finnish. Maybe the Finnish is connected with the White Horde.
China was taken by a series of sieges.
Just a few random thoughts sparked by previous posts.

PS The Romans had to build two walls between England and Scotland against the Celts and still lost their 7th legion who mistakenly ventured north. Guerrilla fighters and flexible horse archers could defeat them any day of the week. Too entrenched in their own rigid discipline for their own good.