Would Europe have been able to fight the Mongols off if

>>2589443
Pic induces erection on me

>>2589465
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8LiQFnkuJY

>>2589443
Why did chariots fall out of use? What changed after Antiquity? I mean guns sure, but that took another 800~ years.

>>2589443
they fought off the mongols without a united europe, obviously a united europe would fare better. That being said the Roman imperial system was inefficient and it's not like they would have been able to muster a huge army on a dime, they never could do that because they had to split it up across the provinces. Honestly, having independent kingdoms united by an alliance would probably be managed on a micro level better. You could even argue that the mongols could have caused a collapse in the imperial system and this doesn't happen when only one independent border nation falls whereas a loss to an empire hurts everywhere.

It could honestly be an interesting conversation that you can look at from a lot of angles. If the imperial system didn't collapse, who's to say the mongols wouldn't then be the catalyst for that?

File: 74b7db3305ff892dd108176d31a72911.jpg (96KB, 577x866px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 577x866px

1. The Romans in your picture are from the 1st century AD. If "Rome had never fallen" then they would look more like this.
2. The Roman Empire didn't fall, the western portion did. The remainder of the Roman Empire actually allied with the Mongols.
3. Europe DID fight off the Mongols, you idiot.

>>2589492
>it's not like they would have been able to muster a huge army on a dime
This was literally the point of the Roman Army by the Late period.

I swear people don't know anything about Romans beyond Caesar memes

>>2589534
1. How do you know what the army would have looked like? I don't see why technological advancement would have meant their armor and weapons wouldn't change just as much as real life Europe's did.
2. Byzantines =/= True Rome
3. Europe got lucky and the Mongols left for unrelated reasons. They'd just fucked up Poland and had a clear route into Western Europe.

>>2589603
>2. Byzantines =/= True Rome
Can you back this claim up with a academic peer-reviewed source?

>>2589610
Nope, but by the time the Mongols rolled around, the Byzantine Empire had little in common with the Roman Empire that spawned it, besides geography.

>>2589539
every time they did that they lost territory somewhere else, it's one of the many reasons the empire fell, because it didn't have the logistical capacity to hold everything it had at the same time. Furthermore if they lost that battle then it hurt the entire empire, not just whatever province the battle happened in. This is the advantage of separate states, because a loss to one state is not necessarily a loss to the others, damage only affects those in the area(besides migration and all that) and the other states can still hold firm. A smaller state can organize a defense for what they have, and if they lose it doesn't spread fear and discord across Europe like wildfire, as it would in the imperial system. I mean sure people are mentally affected, might think they're next, but ultimately they can always unite against a common threat when necessary without needing a bloated imperial system to support at all times and without feeling like a loss anywhere is a loss everywhere. The west basically became a series of smaller kingdoms because it was impossible for bureaucrats sent from constantinople to hold any real power so far away and because managing an empire that big inevitably meant inefficiencies at the micro level. Europe basically organized itself into more manageable and independent provinces because the imperial system had already proven itself unable to face the task at hand

>>2589643
>Nope
stopped reading there

>>2589603
>They'd just fucked up Poland and had a clear route into Western Europe
No, they wouldn't. Poland beat the mongols in the 3rd invasion and Hungary beat them too

Mongols would never get into Western Europe

>>2589763
They'd have bounced back.

>>2589443
they couldnt even fight off the goths

>>2589443
The Byzantines were Roman.

The Byzantines were cucks, they sided with Mongols and sent tribute.

>>2589763
Fart

>>2589443
no, they couldn't even fight the huns

>>2590365
>>2590383
This
>Be Roman
>Suck at cavalry.
>Pay scary nomads to go away.

>>2590383
I'd be incredibly interested to know what history books you've been reading that say the Romans didn't fight the Huns

>>2590383
You ucking retard

>>2590365
Did they join the Mongol Empire? I thought the Mongols demanded you join or be conquered.

>>2589603
>>2589610
>>2589643
Gee anon, it's almost like societies change over time. By your logic the Empire of Septimus Severus isn't Roman either, because it had little in common with the Republic of Publius Decius Mus except for geography.

>>2590416
They didn't ally with the unified empire, just one of the successor hoards.

>>2590365
>The Byzantines were Roman.

nice meme

>>2590532
Can you back the claim that the Byzantines weren't Roman up with a academic peer-reviewed source?

>>2590565
>they called themselves Romaioi, or Romans. Modern historians agree with them only in part.
The term East Rome accurately described the political unit embracing the Eastern provinces of the old Roman Empire until 476, while there were yet two emperors.

>The same term may even be used until the last half of the 6th century, as long as men continued to act and think according to patterns not unlike those prevailing in an earlier Roman Empire. During those same centuries, nonetheless, there were changes so profound in their cumulative effect that after the 7th century state and society in the East differed markedly from their earlier forms. In an effort to recognize that distinction, historians traditionally have described the medieval empire as Byzantine

https://www.britannica.com/place/Byzantine-Empire

>>2589475
FAKE, ITS A DRILL KID

>>2589443
>implying Rome fell
Nice Latin letters you're typing with there.

Rome didn't die. Rome ascended.

>>2590797
Ascended to nonexistence.

No. The Mongols were almost unstoppable and Rome's pro-slavery and anti-technology attitude would have only held Europe back. Europe just got lucky that the current Khan died and his sons returned to fight over succession.

>>2590807
It ascended to the point where it became the default cultural expression for all of Europe. We now call the Roman Empire "Western Civilization".

>>2589489
They didn't fall out of use for quite a while in places they were effective. They are horribly ineffective in marshes, forests,and hilly/mountainous terrain.

But furthermore, one rider on one horse was more effective. They became particulary effective after advances in saddles and stirups and after larger horses were bred.

>>2589603
3. Europe got lucky and the Mongols left for unrelated reasons.
Yeah, those reasons being having utterly stalled in Hungary and sustaining serious losses for no gain against a total backwater.
>They'd just fucked up Poland and had a clear route into Western Europe.
They'd fucked a weak, technologically backward kingdom with friendly terrain and had a clear route into a more advanced land with far more men and fortifications inhabiting far worse terrain.

And they were still making zero progress on reducing the Hungarians castles.

>>2589653
It's like you don't know that the western and eastern legions routinely marched to aid each other in times of duress, or simply got shuffled form one place to the other.


>>2590818
They were preparing to leave before they could possibly have known of his death, and did not proceed directly home. Try again.

>>2589489
They're not very good when compared to cavalry, provided the cavalry can actually acquire horses strong enough to get the job done.

Chariots existed in war largely because the horses were too fucking weak to carry a man any distance. A pair could, and the chariot itself was initially very light. Heavier chariots come about with more-and stronger-horses.

>>2590797
The state doesn't exist anymore.

File: 1484566079363.jpg (61KB, 580x720px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 580x720px

>>2589603
>2. Byzantines =/= True Rome

On the topic of byzantine/true rome, who exactly founded rome? Was it a greek colony conquering the latin tribes in the area, the latin tribes being influenced by the greeks or the two groups mixing?

I´m trying to research that and still have no clue.

>>2589443

They basically did that when they were fighting against Attila