can't equate.. one was a great conqueror, and empire builder from a scratch . the other was established empire with well disciplined, patriotic, civilised, well groomed, traditional well protected, governed, army. hence question has no common elements to compare.
It really isn't fair to compare them. That is like comparing "Stonewall" Jackson's troops to ours today; there was just too vast a technological difference.
And do the Mongols have all their horses? Is it a flat plain or hilly? Is there any forest? There isn't really a "neutral" ground for these 2 armies. They excelled at different things. Rome was amazing defensively, Mongols at quick charges and feints. Romans used very little cavalry overall, Mongols didn't use much infantry.
All in all, I would have to say Rome only because the Khan was a man of the missile. They were best with bows on horseback, and Rome was well armored in lamellar with tower shields, and their amazing formation against arrows. It is almost impossible to get through a Roman legion with arrows alone, and unless on an open field or surprised, very difficult to hit their flanks. It worked for the Parthians against Cassius, but only because they brought with them thousands of camels loaded with arrows and shot until they were completely empty.
I think the only question is whether a Mongols arrow would pierce a Romans soldiers armour. (and remember that Roman armour didn't cover the entire body)
The Mongols defeated Russian and European heavy cavalry that were wearing full body armour. The Russians and European cavalry were more mobile than the Romans. The Mongols easily defeated them.
A Roman army needed a large supply train to move. The Mongols could easily outflank the Romans and attack the supply train.
If the battle was in open territory the Mongols win, if it was in forested territory, the Mongols would withdraw to open ground, forcing the Roman infantry to follow, then attack after the Romans were tired out from marching.
It is hard to say who. First, you ask who could be better between Genghis Khan - an individual ruler - and Romans, a collectivity. Of course, you meant a battle among the soldiers of the two armies, but you forgot to specific a Roman general - Pompeii, Caesar, Marius, Sulla, a.s.o.
Second, the armies involved were completely different. The Romans had an excellent heavy infantry, the famous legion, and no pedestrian army in antiquity could face it; but their cavalry was very weak, both in number and maneuverability. By the way, the Romans didn't know anything about the stirrup, it was brought in Europe by the migratory people, who finally destroyed Rome. Just think, a horseman with stirrups have both hands free and can use a bow, while the one without stirrups cannot, he is obliged to keep with one hand by the bridle rein.
On the other hand, the Mongolians were excellent horsemen; even today, no Mongolian walk more than 10 meters, if he has his horse with him. Their soldiers had more reserve horses and their army was entirely on the back of the horses. So, it's mobility was much greater than of an infantry army - and mobility is often the key of the victory.
Also, the Khan's army was excellent organized, every soldier having his precise role in march and in battle, as well as the Romans. Of course, severe punishments were an efficient method to achieve that result, but even the Romans used decimation as a measure of punishing their soldiers after a defeat.
So, my friend, is difficult to say who could win. A good Roman general could find solutions against an horsemen army, but others could fail, as Crassus and Marcus Antonius, who were defeated by the Parths, another horsemen army. Most probably Caesar would win, but this is just a supposition. History never put him face to face with Genghis Khan.
At their peaks? Romans. The one thing about the Roman army is not that it was invincible, but that it was adaptable. They developed a military organization that was flexible enough to overcome everything from the mighty Greek and Macedonian Phalanxes to the wild Gallic hordes. They learned to defeat Sea-borne pirates and Carthaginians on their own terms. They were capable of siege warfare, and they possessed the classical equivalents of artillery. They even used specialty weapons as needed. While calvary was their weak point, there is no reason to believe that they were incapable overcoming the Mongols. And once they got sight of the stirrup, there is little doubt they would have quickly latched onto that innovation for their own uses.
While the Mongols shared with the Romans the idea of discipline(you mention Mongol discipline; the Romans had practiced decimation long before they showed up), the Romans also would have had the "home field" advantage. They would have been fighting for not just Rome the empire, but for their homes and families. They would have enjoyed the resources of the entire Mediterranean region to draw on to fight the Mongols. They were more familiar with fighting over more kinds of terrain than the Mongols. The Mongols would most likely have inflicted heavy casualties on the Romans initially, and for some time thereafter. But once the Romans had devised a strategic response, the Mongols would have either faced extermination or been forced to retreat far from the Empire's borders.
There is the small matter of… military evolution that escapes your attention;the clash of East and
West,direct and indirect strategy,items studied in military academies all over the world(self respecting ones..)
Cavalries firing projectiles and apply hit and run tactics(All the Eastern cavalries:Persians,Huns,Arabs,Mongols,Turks) and cavalries who clashed and based thei power on the strength of the punch(Goths,Vandals,Alans Franks etc).
The Greeks defeated the Persians due to the superb actions of their infantry in the Persian Wars or the actions of Alexander's cavalry on open ground protecting the infantry flanks and breaking the enemy lines.
When the bow became stronger,without cavalry to protect their flanks,the Roman legions were destroyed in Carrae in Lykia(Asia Minor)by the superb Parthian cavalry in 54 BC and Crassus was killed in that action.The Parthians would have destroyed the Roman Empire if the Eastern Empire hadn't reorganised its army by using the Byzantine Catafracts using bow and arrow and dominating the East for almost 1000 years.The Eastern cavalries,using superior tactics and armed with superior weapons prevailed in the battlefields until the coming of the gunpowder.
Now for the Mongols vs Romans,you are commiting…sacrilege.The Dark Ages and Medieval Europe have little to show in military tactics and stategy,with the celebrated exception
of the magnificent feats of the Mongolian Cavalry
which conquered Eurasia to the Adriatic Sea and returned back only because the great Khan died while Western Europe had nothing to stop them with.Their Campaign against Eastern and Central Europe in 1241(search it in Google) in mid-winter is militarily perfect.Basil H. Liddel Heart,English military theorist and inventor of the modern all arms armoured warfare,based the movements of tanks or if you like the Panzer divisions,on the movements of the Mongolian cavalry.
The success of that cavalry was due to:
1) The organization or their cavalry in Squadrons
Regiments,and Corps of 100,1000, and 10000
horsemen respectively,all capable of moving in a
battle silently with the signals of small battle flags.
2) In the Mongolian Horse and the Mongolian Bow;the horse was used to covering great distances with little food and accustomed to the adverse conditions of the Mongolian steppe,the
Bow was a marvel having double range than the bows of its time.
3) Their military law "Yasaki" which equated military disobedience to common Law crimes punishable by death.
It is you who is going to tell me how many…minutes you would give to a legion before it would be slaughtered…The Mongols were a vast improvement on the Parthian cavalry
and don't forget what happened in Carrae in 54 BC.
4)The Mongols were led by Subotai,the greatest General of his time…
I personally think the Parthians were the best archers in the ancient world and , as good if not better than the Mongolian archers. The Parthians had inferior bows but, were equilly deadly with them (lets not forget the awe inspiring Parthian shot). The Cataphracts played their part too. The Romans evenually overcame this (at a great cost too). However the wars were not a Battle for extinction as much for Supremacy and Prestige. All it took was one capable commander (Trajan) and it was theirs for the taking. In my opinion the Romans would eventually take this one. There is simply no way that 60,000 to 90,000 mongolians (# at height of power) even on their horses could beat 400,000 to 700,000 Romans. (# at height of Power). This would be a battle for extinction and at their height , the Romans did not lose such battles. THIS BATTLE WOULD NOT REACH THE TRIARII. S P Q R long live WESTERN CIVILIZATION
The key is in the command. Rome at its best would be Scipio Africanus the elder, or Gaius Marius, or Julius Caesar.
IMO Rome wins- same as they did against the Parthians (you cannot count Crassus as "best commander" by any standard)
My feeling is that the "best" Roman commander would attack in winter and use the Mongol strengt (horse army) against them. Alternative is attack in summer- and burn the grasslands (method used by Novogrod as defense against Mongol invasions- and successful)
the composite bow is a fearsome weapon- sure enough. But even more so are ballistas and onagers in competent hands
best option for Mongols is a multi pronged massive invasion. Surprise followed by extermination. If Rome is given time- they will always win
The Mongols would demolish the Romans. If Attila and his Huns terrorized the Romans the Mongols would do much more. The two groups are similar but the Mongols are just a better version of the Huns. Roman tactics are old compared to the Mongols highly revolutionized warfare tactics and ingenious generals such as Subutai (the greatest commander in history). If the Mongols couldn’t win a battle with the Romans with straight forward attacking they would deceive them with feigned retreats and other ingenious tactics to confuse and disorder the Romans. Face the facts, the Mongols conquered Persia and China, two civilizations that set the standard for modernization in the 13th century. While the Romans conquered barbarians such as the Celts and Goths. Even the best Roman army is no match for a horde under the worst Mongol commander. And in contrary to your statement that men were terrorized into service would be incorrect. Under Mongol rule people enjoyed religious freedom, education and trade. People were happy with the Khan, but if they were on the Khan’s bad side then they would surely experience a taste of hell. Recall the battle between Parthia and Rome in 53 B.C. The Parthia’s steppe tactics almost obliterated the entire Roman army and Crassus paid with his life. Also recall the Mongols invasions of Europe where the famed European knight proved no match with the Mongols amazing mobilization and feigned retreats. Europe was in total fright when entire armies of knights were annihilated. Caesar against Genghis Khan and Subutai would be a joke. Subutai conquered more land and won more battles than any commander in the world. The Khan and Subutai are two of the most dangerous military minds in history. To this present day armies around the world study the ingenious tactics of the Mongols. A great example would be Germany’s Blitzkrieg tactics, named after the Mongolians lightning quick advances. As for Caesar, what kind of modernistic military mind did he have compared to the Great Khan and Subutai? If I had to chose a side to fight for I would join the Mongols. Even if the Roman army was larger that would not scare any Mongol army. Many times the Mongols faced armies up to twice their size due to (once again) their ingenious and revolutionary tactics.
There's an old phrase that good commanders talk of tactics but great commanders talk of logistics. We can spend all day talking about the type of armor or the strength of the bow, but the plain truth is that tactics alone doesn't win wars. The side that wins is the side that is more organized, better supported, and with the more intelligent and enterprising officers who are able to individually handle everything from supply lines to battle formations without the need of the involvement of the commanders themselves.
And in this regard that the Romans were arguably the most effective fighting force in the history of warfare. Their soldiers were tough, patriotic, and disciplined to the point where their espirit de corps made them fanatically loyal to their unit (which sometimes worked against the Romans politically). Rome drew her officers from her large, highly productive, well to do middle class, producing educated men who were competent, capable men. Many Roman generals owe their laurels to the courage of their officers, who were able to act decisively in the heat of battle on their own initiative, often times preventing the line from being broken.
This is what wins wars. The Gauls were more ferocious warriors, the Carthaginians the richer province with the more diverse troops, the Greeks were more disciplined, the Jews were more fanatical, and the Spaniards were more technologically advanced. Rome beat them all, and usually did so on their own turf.
In the case of the Spaniards, the Romans copied much of their technological edge, and by the end of the Second Punic War, were all swinging Spanish Swords and wearing Chainmail. Adaptability, pragmatism, and improvisation were the hallmarks of the Roman Army, in addition to their tough, stiff-jawed population who were willing to endure appalling casualties in order to win the war.
Even against the Parthians, Rome was a juggernaut. Only at rare times in history were the Parthians/Sassanid Persians in possession of enough might to challenge Rome directly, and usually resorted to little more than heavy raiding. When the Roman army passed into Parthia, any attempts to resist the Romans saw the Romans smashing the Parthians, thus they were forced to adopt guerilla tactics in order to starve them out. The battle of Carrhae is an exception, owing more to the incompetence and arrogance of Cassus than to the ingenuity of the Parthians.
Roman failure to subdue to the Parthians was due more towards an unwillingness to commit the forces necessary to conquer such a poor territory. And also remember that the Roman Empire was in less of a financial position to embark on massive wars of conquest than the Republic was, owing to the bureaucracy of the Empire and the expense of the massive social programs which kept the citizens happy and complacent. However, even despite the Empire's shortcomings, Parthia was in fact conquered by Trajan, only later to be abandoned by Hadrian as Hadrian decided that the province would have been difficult to defend and wasn't worth the income to keep.
Thus the Romans proved themselves capable of taking on even disjointed hordes of horse archers. Their failures against the Huns are hardly warranted, as the Rome of the 5th century was in such a decrepit state that they had to resort to partitioning land to germanic tribes in exchange for a quota of soldiers in order to maintain even the most minimal of state defenses, with the proper Roman army being little more than a conscript horde armed with shoddy, cheap equipment (they were lucky to get a helmet, often times soldiers in this era went into battle with only a crude spear and a shield and no training.) Yet even in their twilight the Romans proved tough opponents who the Huns were unable to subdue. Had the Huns invaded during Rome at her peak, their likelyhood of success would have been fantastically lower.
Against such a stalwart foe, I can see no advantage that the Mongols would have against them, especially considering that the Mongols were not even able to subdue 14th century Poland. Any technological advantage (such as the stirrup) would have been quickly adapted, negating that particular advantage. The Mongols were heavily reliant on momentum, which they simply would not have been able to keep up in the face of determined Roman resistance, and as history showed, once the Mongol momentum began to crack, the empire quickly crumbled, and within a few generations of Ghengis and Ogedei Khan's reign, had completely disintegrated into dust. In eastern Europe they had a saying about the Mongols: "at least the turks gave us algebra". The Mongols swooped in, caused a lot of misery, then vanished from history leaving, only dust and bad memories.
Comments on Roman empire vs Genghis Khan? »
Hmmm.. Intriguing matchup, to say the least.
can't equate.. one was a great conqueror, and empire builder from a scratch . the other was established empire with well disciplined, patriotic, civilised, well groomed, traditional well protected, governed, army. hence question has no common elements to compare.
It really isn't fair to compare them. That is like comparing "Stonewall" Jackson's troops to ours today; there was just too vast a technological difference.
And do the Mongols have all their horses? Is it a flat plain or hilly? Is there any forest? There isn't really a "neutral" ground for these 2 armies. They excelled at different things. Rome was amazing defensively, Mongols at quick charges and feints. Romans used very little cavalry overall, Mongols didn't use much infantry.
All in all, I would have to say Rome only because the Khan was a man of the missile. They were best with bows on horseback, and Rome was well armored in lamellar with tower shields, and their amazing formation against arrows. It is almost impossible to get through a Roman legion with arrows alone, and unless on an open field or surprised, very difficult to hit their flanks. It worked for the Parthians against Cassius, but only because they brought with them thousands of camels loaded with arrows and shot until they were completely empty.
I think the only question is whether a Mongols arrow would pierce a Romans soldiers armour. (and remember that Roman armour didn't cover the entire body)
The Mongols defeated Russian and European heavy cavalry that were wearing full body armour. The Russians and European cavalry were more mobile than the Romans. The Mongols easily defeated them.
A Roman army needed a large supply train to move. The Mongols could easily outflank the Romans and attack the supply train.
If the battle was in open territory the Mongols win, if it was in forested territory, the Mongols would withdraw to open ground, forcing the Roman infantry to follow, then attack after the Romans were tired out from marching.
I think a Mongol army would defeat a Roman army.
It is hard to say who. First, you ask who could be better between Genghis Khan - an individual ruler - and Romans, a collectivity. Of course, you meant a battle among the soldiers of the two armies, but you forgot to specific a Roman general - Pompeii, Caesar, Marius, Sulla, a.s.o.
Second, the armies involved were completely different. The Romans had an excellent heavy infantry, the famous legion, and no pedestrian army in antiquity could face it; but their cavalry was very weak, both in number and maneuverability. By the way, the Romans didn't know anything about the stirrup, it was brought in Europe by the migratory people, who finally destroyed Rome. Just think, a horseman with stirrups have both hands free and can use a bow, while the one without stirrups cannot, he is obliged to keep with one hand by the bridle rein.
On the other hand, the Mongolians were excellent horsemen; even today, no Mongolian walk more than 10 meters, if he has his horse with him. Their soldiers had more reserve horses and their army was entirely on the back of the horses. So, it's mobility was much greater than of an infantry army - and mobility is often the key of the victory.
Also, the Khan's army was excellent organized, every soldier having his precise role in march and in battle, as well as the Romans. Of course, severe punishments were an efficient method to achieve that result, but even the Romans used decimation as a measure of punishing their soldiers after a defeat.
So, my friend, is difficult to say who could win. A good Roman general could find solutions against an horsemen army, but others could fail, as Crassus and Marcus Antonius, who were defeated by the Parths, another horsemen army. Most probably Caesar would win, but this is just a supposition. History never put him face to face with Genghis Khan.
Khan's army would have easy swept across the Roman Empire. They seemed alot more powerfull.
At their peaks? Romans. The one thing about the Roman army is not that it was invincible, but that it was adaptable. They developed a military organization that was flexible enough to overcome everything from the mighty Greek and Macedonian Phalanxes to the wild Gallic hordes. They learned to defeat Sea-borne pirates and Carthaginians on their own terms. They were capable of siege warfare, and they possessed the classical equivalents of artillery. They even used specialty weapons as needed. While calvary was their weak point, there is no reason to believe that they were incapable overcoming the Mongols. And once they got sight of the stirrup, there is little doubt they would have quickly latched onto that innovation for their own uses.
While the Mongols shared with the Romans the idea of discipline(you mention Mongol discipline; the Romans had practiced decimation long before they showed up), the Romans also would have had the "home field" advantage. They would have been fighting for not just Rome the empire, but for their homes and families. They would have enjoyed the resources of the entire Mediterranean region to draw on to fight the Mongols. They were more familiar with fighting over more kinds of terrain than the Mongols. The Mongols would most likely have inflicted heavy casualties on the Romans initially, and for some time thereafter. But once the Romans had devised a strategic response, the Mongols would have either faced extermination or been forced to retreat far from the Empire's borders.
There is the small matter of… military evolution that escapes your attention;the clash of East and
West,direct and indirect strategy,items studied in military academies all over the world(self respecting ones..)
Cavalries firing projectiles and apply hit and run tactics(All the Eastern cavalries:Persians,Huns,Arabs,Mongols,Turks) and cavalries who clashed and based thei power on the strength of the punch(Goths,Vandals,Alans Franks etc).
The Greeks defeated the Persians due to the superb actions of their infantry in the Persian Wars or the actions of Alexander's cavalry on open ground protecting the infantry flanks and breaking the enemy lines.
When the bow became stronger,without cavalry to protect their flanks,the Roman legions were destroyed in Carrae in Lykia(Asia Minor)by the superb Parthian cavalry in 54 BC and Crassus was killed in that action.The Parthians would have destroyed the Roman Empire if the Eastern Empire hadn't reorganised its army by using the Byzantine Catafracts using bow and arrow and dominating the East for almost 1000 years.The Eastern cavalries,using superior tactics and armed with superior weapons prevailed in the battlefields until the coming of the gunpowder.
Now for the Mongols vs Romans,you are commiting…sacrilege.The Dark Ages and Medieval Europe have little to show in military tactics and stategy,with the celebrated exception
of the magnificent feats of the Mongolian Cavalry
which conquered Eurasia to the Adriatic Sea and returned back only because the great Khan died while Western Europe had nothing to stop them with.Their Campaign against Eastern and Central Europe in 1241(search it in Google) in mid-winter is militarily perfect.Basil H. Liddel Heart,English military theorist and inventor of the modern all arms armoured warfare,based the movements of tanks or if you like the Panzer divisions,on the movements of the Mongolian cavalry.
The success of that cavalry was due to:
1) The organization or their cavalry in Squadrons
Regiments,and Corps of 100,1000, and 10000
horsemen respectively,all capable of moving in a
battle silently with the signals of small battle flags.
2) In the Mongolian Horse and the Mongolian Bow;the horse was used to covering great distances with little food and accustomed to the adverse conditions of the Mongolian steppe,the
Bow was a marvel having double range than the bows of its time.
3) Their military law "Yasaki" which equated military disobedience to common Law crimes punishable by death.
It is you who is going to tell me how many…minutes you would give to a legion before it would be slaughtered…The Mongols were a vast improvement on the Parthian cavalry
and don't forget what happened in Carrae in 54 BC.
4)The Mongols were led by Subotai,the greatest General of his time…
I personally think the Parthians were the best archers in the ancient world and , as good if not better than the Mongolian archers. The Parthians had inferior bows but, were equilly deadly with them (lets not forget the awe inspiring Parthian shot). The Cataphracts played their part too. The Romans evenually overcame this (at a great cost too). However the wars were not a Battle for extinction as much for Supremacy and Prestige. All it took was one capable commander (Trajan) and it was theirs for the taking. In my opinion the Romans would eventually take this one. There is simply no way that 60,000 to 90,000 mongolians (# at height of power) even on their horses could beat 400,000 to 700,000 Romans. (# at height of Power). This would be a battle for extinction and at their height , the Romans did not lose such battles. THIS BATTLE WOULD NOT REACH THE TRIARII. S P Q R long live WESTERN CIVILIZATION
The key is in the command. Rome at its best would be Scipio Africanus the elder, or Gaius Marius, or Julius Caesar.
IMO Rome wins- same as they did against the Parthians (you cannot count Crassus as "best commander" by any standard)
My feeling is that the "best" Roman commander would attack in winter and use the Mongol strengt (horse army) against them. Alternative is attack in summer- and burn the grasslands (method used by Novogrod as defense against Mongol invasions- and successful)
the composite bow is a fearsome weapon- sure enough. But even more so are ballistas and onagers in competent hands
best option for Mongols is a multi pronged massive invasion. Surprise followed by extermination. If Rome is given time- they will always win
The Mongols would demolish the Romans. If Attila and his Huns terrorized the Romans the Mongols would do much more. The two groups are similar but the Mongols are just a better version of the Huns. Roman tactics are old compared to the Mongols highly revolutionized warfare tactics and ingenious generals such as Subutai (the greatest commander in history). If the Mongols couldn’t win a battle with the Romans with straight forward attacking they would deceive them with feigned retreats and other ingenious tactics to confuse and disorder the Romans. Face the facts, the Mongols conquered Persia and China, two civilizations that set the standard for modernization in the 13th century. While the Romans conquered barbarians such as the Celts and Goths. Even the best Roman army is no match for a horde under the worst Mongol commander. And in contrary to your statement that men were terrorized into service would be incorrect. Under Mongol rule people enjoyed religious freedom, education and trade. People were happy with the Khan, but if they were on the Khan’s bad side then they would surely experience a taste of hell. Recall the battle between Parthia and Rome in 53 B.C. The Parthia’s steppe tactics almost obliterated the entire Roman army and Crassus paid with his life. Also recall the Mongols invasions of Europe where the famed European knight proved no match with the Mongols amazing mobilization and feigned retreats. Europe was in total fright when entire armies of knights were annihilated. Caesar against Genghis Khan and Subutai would be a joke. Subutai conquered more land and won more battles than any commander in the world. The Khan and Subutai are two of the most dangerous military minds in history. To this present day armies around the world study the ingenious tactics of the Mongols. A great example would be Germany’s Blitzkrieg tactics, named after the Mongolians lightning quick advances. As for Caesar, what kind of modernistic military mind did he have compared to the Great Khan and Subutai? If I had to chose a side to fight for I would join the Mongols. Even if the Roman army was larger that would not scare any Mongol army. Many times the Mongols faced armies up to twice their size due to (once again) their ingenious and revolutionary tactics.
There's an old phrase that good commanders talk of tactics but great commanders talk of logistics. We can spend all day talking about the type of armor or the strength of the bow, but the plain truth is that tactics alone doesn't win wars. The side that wins is the side that is more organized, better supported, and with the more intelligent and enterprising officers who are able to individually handle everything from supply lines to battle formations without the need of the involvement of the commanders themselves.
And in this regard that the Romans were arguably the most effective fighting force in the history of warfare. Their soldiers were tough, patriotic, and disciplined to the point where their espirit de corps made them fanatically loyal to their unit (which sometimes worked against the Romans politically). Rome drew her officers from her large, highly productive, well to do middle class, producing educated men who were competent, capable men. Many Roman generals owe their laurels to the courage of their officers, who were able to act decisively in the heat of battle on their own initiative, often times preventing the line from being broken.
This is what wins wars. The Gauls were more ferocious warriors, the Carthaginians the richer province with the more diverse troops, the Greeks were more disciplined, the Jews were more fanatical, and the Spaniards were more technologically advanced. Rome beat them all, and usually did so on their own turf.
In the case of the Spaniards, the Romans copied much of their technological edge, and by the end of the Second Punic War, were all swinging Spanish Swords and wearing Chainmail. Adaptability, pragmatism, and improvisation were the hallmarks of the Roman Army, in addition to their tough, stiff-jawed population who were willing to endure appalling casualties in order to win the war.
Even against the Parthians, Rome was a juggernaut. Only at rare times in history were the Parthians/Sassanid Persians in possession of enough might to challenge Rome directly, and usually resorted to little more than heavy raiding. When the Roman army passed into Parthia, any attempts to resist the Romans saw the Romans smashing the Parthians, thus they were forced to adopt guerilla tactics in order to starve them out. The battle of Carrhae is an exception, owing more to the incompetence and arrogance of Cassus than to the ingenuity of the Parthians.
Roman failure to subdue to the Parthians was due more towards an unwillingness to commit the forces necessary to conquer such a poor territory. And also remember that the Roman Empire was in less of a financial position to embark on massive wars of conquest than the Republic was, owing to the bureaucracy of the Empire and the expense of the massive social programs which kept the citizens happy and complacent. However, even despite the Empire's shortcomings, Parthia was in fact conquered by Trajan, only later to be abandoned by Hadrian as Hadrian decided that the province would have been difficult to defend and wasn't worth the income to keep.
Thus the Romans proved themselves capable of taking on even disjointed hordes of horse archers. Their failures against the Huns are hardly warranted, as the Rome of the 5th century was in such a decrepit state that they had to resort to partitioning land to germanic tribes in exchange for a quota of soldiers in order to maintain even the most minimal of state defenses, with the proper Roman army being little more than a conscript horde armed with shoddy, cheap equipment (they were lucky to get a helmet, often times soldiers in this era went into battle with only a crude spear and a shield and no training.) Yet even in their twilight the Romans proved tough opponents who the Huns were unable to subdue. Had the Huns invaded during Rome at her peak, their likelyhood of success would have been fantastically lower.
Against such a stalwart foe, I can see no advantage that the Mongols would have against them, especially considering that the Mongols were not even able to subdue 14th century Poland. Any technological advantage (such as the stirrup) would have been quickly adapted, negating that particular advantage. The Mongols were heavily reliant on momentum, which they simply would not have been able to keep up in the face of determined Roman resistance, and as history showed, once the Mongol momentum began to crack, the empire quickly crumbled, and within a few generations of Ghengis and Ogedei Khan's reign, had completely disintegrated into dust. In eastern Europe they had a saying about the Mongols: "at least the turks gave us algebra". The Mongols swooped in, caused a lot of misery, then vanished from history leaving, only dust and bad memories.