[Virtual Duel] Roman Empire vs Mongol Empire: Can the Shield of the Mediterranean Block the Arrows of the Steppe? (Based on Peak Era) - Part 2

Table of Contents (Automatically Generated)

Segment 1: Introduction and Background
Segment 2: In-depth Discussion and Comparison
Segment 3: Conclusion and Action Guide

Starting Part 2 — Recalling Key Points from Part 1

In Part 1, we surveyed what truly determines victory when the “Shield of the Mediterranean” faces the “Arrows of the Steppe” on a grand map. We dissected the administrative power, road and port network of the Roman Empire, and the standardized training and supply system of the legions. On the opposing side, we examined how the decentralized and converging military system of the Mongol Empire, along with its superior strategic mobility—specifically the Tümen-centered shock-maneuver-ambush pattern—was effective across diverse terrains. We compared siege capabilities and naval power, intelligence and reconnaissance, and psychological warfare within a macro frame, warning against the dangerous misunderstanding of a “simple firepower vs maneuver” dichotomy.

In summary, Rome aims for superiority in the sustainability of the front lines and the construction of defensive networks, while the Mongols leverage pre-contact information warfare and post-contact speed. At the end of Part 1, we proposed a “time distortion” rule to place both empires in the same ring, setting the variables of terrain, season, resources, and command lines fairly to prepare for a true ‘combat-ready’ discussion. Now, in Part 2, we will lay that preparation onto actual scenarios.

5 Key Points from Part 1

Rome secures endurance in prolonged warfare through shield walls and standardized logistics (roads, warehouses, ports).
The Mongols maintain the initiative in short-term conflicts through cavalry tactics and information superiority (reconnaissance, baiting, smoke screens).
Rome's strength lies in its urban and fortress network and expertise in siege warfare, while the Mongols excel in open terrain with the range and rapid firepower of their composite bows.
Naval power is not Rome’s weak point but a hidden lever that can change the direction of war.
Common notions like “weak cavalry in Rome vs siege-inept Mongols” are only half-true. Details can overturn the outcome.

Now, let’s seriously ask the question: Can the shield line of Mediterranean civilization truly withstand the arrow rain of the steppe? Like your favorite strategy simulation game, let’s set clear assumptions and constraints, and delineate the boundaries of ‘possible’ and ‘impossible’ through data.

Peak Era Criteria: Rules for a Fair Time Travel

First, we need to establish the “Peak Era Criteria.” For Rome, we will take the reign of Trajan (AD 98–117) or the early golden age of Antoninus and Marcus Aurelius (early 2nd century AD) as representatives. During this period, Rome reached its maximum extent, with a relatively stable taxation and conscription system, and the harmony of road, aqueduct, and port infrastructure at its peak. The Mongols will be benchmarked against the time of Ögedei Khan (AD 1229–1241) and Subutai’s European campaigns (around AD 1241). At this time, the Mongols had achieved a perfect triad of composite bows, mobility, and command, having absorbed a variety of siege equipment and a network of engineers.

As soon as both peak eras are placed on the same timeline, differences in technology, culture, and learning curves emerge. Therefore, to ensure fairness, we declare the following rules.

Armament and equipment adhere to the peak standards of each empire: Rome with legions and auxiliaries, Mongolia with composite cavalry focused on Tümen.
Tactics and doctrines are based on the average of that peak era, but ‘learning adaptation’ is assumed to be limited (i.e., instant replication is not allowed, but improvements during battle are permitted).
Logistics reflect the unique strengths and weaknesses of each empire: Rome focuses on land and naval logistics, while Mongolia relies on herds, procurement, and nomadic supply.
Alliance resource mobilization is limited. Roman allies and provincial troops, as well as Mongolian vassals and cooperative forces, are recognized only within the ‘core standard power’.

The Pitfalls of Time Distortion

Assumptions like “If Rome had gunpowder…” or “If the Mongols had large galleys…” are intriguing but are excluded from this discussion. It is fair to determine the outcome without changing the nature of materials, based solely on differences in recipes.

The Battlefield Canvas: Where, When, and How Will They Clash?

The battlefield canvas we will utilize in this Part 2 consists of three scenarios. Each reveals different points of contention and allows readers to intuitively experience whether “changing the conditions alters the outcome.”

Open Steppe: A flat, wide area with visibility and maneuverability. The Mongol's composite bows range and rapid fire shine brightest here.
Fragmented Terrain: An intermediate zone with a mix of rivers, hills, forests, and ravines. This is where Rome's shield wall and auxiliary troops engage in complex interactions with the Mongolian decentralized mobility.
Fortress-City: A dense area where walls, gates, and alleys can change the tide of battle. This is where Rome’s siege warfare expertise intersects with Mongolian engineers, siege engines, and psychological warfare.

Just as important as the canvas are the seasons, water, and the length of supply lines. The dry, cold air and wind of winter affect the trajectory of arrows, while the heat of summer slows down daytime operations. Rainfall creates mud, which can hinder the speed of horses and mules. The conclusion is simple: Rome’s road network guarantees “predictable speed” even in rain or snow, while Mongolia’s horse-relay system ensures “unpredictable mobility.” Who designs the battlefield and seasons effectively determines half of the outcome.

‘Snapshot’ of Both Powers — What Will They Fight With?

The military systems of different civilizations come with different terminologies. To establish a common understanding before the actual comparison, we have prepared a ‘snapshot table’ that presents the power composition at a glance.

Component	Rome (Legion and Auxiliaries)	Mongolia (Tümen and Provincial Forces)	Combat Role
Core Units	Heavy Infantry (Gladius, Pilum, Large Shield)	Cavalry Archers and Lancers (Composite Bow, Sabre, Spear)	Nature of Firepower: Close-quarters breaching vs. long-range attrition and siege
Command Structure	Legion - Cohort - Century	Tümen (10,000) - Minggan (1,000) - Jun (100)	Control Density: Centralized vs. Command Distribution and Mutual Support
Logistics Model	Quantitative supply based on roads, ports, and warehouses	Horse relay, local procurement, mobile provisioning	Sustainability vs. Range and Speed
Reconnaissance and Intelligence	Regular reconnaissance units + local administrative network	Cavalry reconnaissance + retainer and merchant networks	Detection Depth and Response Speed
Siege Capabilities	Skilled in siege towers, catapults, and engineering units	Diverse ethnic engineers, psychological warfare, intimidation, and excavation	Path selection for fortress capture

One important fact: Rome’s core is infantry, but the cavalry, archers, slingers, and engineers filled with ‘auxiliaries’ are by no means insignificant. The Mongols rely on cavalry archers as their core, but they skillfully weave in diverse ethnic skills and personnel for siege, reconnaissance, and disruption when necessary. Ultimately, the battle is determined not by “one answer” but by the “quality of combinations.”

“Straight shield wall vs. curved lines of movement — which will crack first?”

Problem Definition: What Are We Trying to Determine?

The goal of Part 2 is not abstract praise but to provide actionable grounds for judgment. Thus, we design scenarios to answer the following questions.

Tactical Level: Can the Mongolian long-range arrow volley physically collapse the Roman shield wall and spear (Pilum) system? Or can Rome’s charge and endurance battle ‘capture’ the Mongolian evasion and encirclement routines?
Operational Level: Can Rome’s fortresses and road networks ‘reject’ or ‘absorb’ Mongolian speed and flanking incursions? Or can the Mongols paralyze Roman administrative authority through dispersed infiltration?
Strategic Level: If naval supply and island/coastal defense are Rome’s ‘second heart’, how will the Mongols affect the heartbeat? Conversely, how much does Mongolian wide-area reconnaissance and psychological warfare disrupt Roman taxation and conscription?
Learning and Adaptation: After a single clash, how quickly do both sides improve their tactics? Can the aspects of strategic mobility connect improvements to ‘on-the-ground application’?
Logistics and Endurance: During monsoon, cold waves, or drought, whose logistics can endure longer? Who reaches the point where speed first turns into strategic costs?

  Evaluation Panel (6 Key Items We Will Track to the End)
  Speed: Time to contact, acceleration and deceleration curves within the battlefield
Range: Effective hit rate, trajectory and penetration, psychological pressure
Sustainability: Supply cycles, fatigue accumulation, maintenance of formation
Breakthrough Ability: Occurrence and speed of local fractures
Recovery Ability: Time for fracture sealing, reorganization, and command restoration
Adaptability: Visibility of improvements post-battle and speed of re-utilization

This panel prevents subjective commentary and lets the evidence speak. It helps you build your conclusions based on “more convincing grounds” rather than “a more impressive story.”

The Border Between Bias and Fact: Common Misconceptions We Need to Correct

Let’s correct a few clichés that frequently arise in historical discussions right from the start. This is not merely a correction but a safeguard to prevent distorting the “criteria for judgment” in subsequent scenarios.

Misunderstanding Check

“Rome had weak cavalry”: This varies greatly by period, and there were excellent cavalry traditions from auxiliaries, Numidians, Gauls, and Illyrians.
“The Mongols cannot lay sieges”: They absorbed various siege technologies across China, Persia, and Khwarezm, employing catapults, excavations, psychological warfare, and espionage in a composite manner.
“Shields can never block arrows”: The outcome varies based on angle, density, reinforcement status, distance, and the material and tension of the arrows. ‘Conditions’ are key.
“If you have horses, logistics are unnecessary”: Mobility does not replace logistics. Acceleration incurs costs, and those costs soon translate into reduced combat effectiveness.

Before rushing to conclusions, remember that no sentence ends with “always.” Instead, let’s continuously attach “when, where, and under what conditions.”

User Guide for Readers: Here’s How We Read

Part 2 is a segment where verification and imagination, numbers and narratives intersect. It may feel complex. Therefore, we propose a simple reading routine as if flipping through the pages.

First, pick one of the battlefield canvases (open, fragmented, city) and visualize your own ‘observation scenario’ in your mind.
Next, revisit the core differences in the power snapshot table. Pay attention to what ‘arrives first’ and what ‘holds out longer’.
Now, keep the six evaluation panel items beside you and check the events and indicators presented in the following segments. Continuously ask questions like, “Who has the advantage in speed?” to maintain the flow.
Finally, jot down your hypothesis. It’s enjoyable to find points where your hypothesis is overturned or reinforced in the subsequent comparison tables.

The Language of Tactics: The Arms of the Shield, The Arms of the Arrow

The Roman emblem signifies order and density. The commands of centurions, the signals of flags and trumpets, and the rectangular formations of legions create a homogeneity of control that greatly reduces the noise on the battlefield. This noise suppression is the essence of the ‘arms of the shield.’ In contrast, the Mongolian emblem represents flexibility and curves. It creates a rhythmic vibration of pursuit and scattering, scattering and regrouping, through smoke screens, feigned retreats, and flank encirclements, constituting the ‘arms of the arrow.’ When these two emblems overlap on the battlefield, “who breaks the rhythm of whom” determines the outcome.

Here, the language spoken by the equipment is also specific. The Roman pilum is specialized for disrupting and disarming to breach the shield wall, while the Mongolian composite bow aims for continuous pressure and incapacitating effects at medium range. One side aims for “a fracture for penetration,” while the other aims for “fatigue that enforces retreat.”

Rulebook of the Simulation: Variables and Weights

I will lay out the ‘rules’ in a way that readers can see. As we follow the tables and examples in the main discussion, it must be transparent what the scoring criteria are.

Time to contact: Reflects successful or failed reconnaissance, movement routes, and weather/terrain penalties.
Effective range and penetration: Evaluated through the combination of ‘distance-angle-concentration’ rather than arithmetic figures.
Command responsiveness: Weights the speed of command transmission and the discretion and creativity of commanders at all levels.
Logistics elasticity: Stability of supply loops based on a daily basis and recovery time in the event of overload.
Psycho-informational warfare: Scores for nonlinear effects such as feigned retreats, utilization of prisoners, and securing local support.
Quality of losses: Reflects differences in the ratio of core to auxiliary losses, even with the same numerical losses.

This rulebook does not fall into “numerical obsession” while also not allowing “groundless intuitions.” This moderate approach is the key to making the virtual duel ‘meaningful.’

Reality Check: How Far Can It Go

The direct clash between the peak Roman Empire and the Mongol Empire has never occurred in history. Therefore, our simulation must broadly cover the 'scope of possibilities'. To achieve this, we have prepared a reality checklist.

Available troop mobilization: Assuming the Roman forces are composed of legions and auxiliaries, while the Mongols are a combination of tumens and provincial forces, reflecting the reduction in numbers due to long-range projections.
Supply line 'end': The Romans will estimate the connections between ports and warehouses, while the Mongols will evaluate the limits of horse changes and self-sufficiency in the steppes.
Command hierarchy: The Romans will include visual signals, lions, and messages, while the Mongols will account for the delays and error probabilities in horseback communication, envoys, and gime signals.
Diplomatic variables: The attitudes of neutral cities and tribes will remain as 'uncertainty variables' and will be scored (cooperation, obstruction, neutrality).

This checklist is not a device for declaring "impossibility," but a filter that narrows down the "conditions of possibility." Only the assumptions that pass the conditions will move on to the next stage.

Core Keyword Preview

If you found this article through a search, the keywords below will serve as focal points in the text. Keeping these words in mind will facilitate quicker understanding.

Roman Empire, Mongol Empire, Legion, Tumen
Cavalry Tactics, Composite Bow, Shield Wall, Siege Warfare
Logistics, Strategic Maneuvering

Reader Participation Imagination Experiment: What Would Your Choice Be?

Hold on, let’s conduct a small thought experiment at this point. If you were a Roman commander, what battlefield would you choose? You might draw in the enemy with a maritime-coastal stronghold and utilize road networks to 'duplicate' supplies while attempting to 'break' the Mongol encirclement in fragmented terrain. Conversely, if you were a Mongolian commander? You would lure the enemy into open ground to secure reconnaissance superiority, increase legions through feigned retreats, and cut off supply lines from the flanks and rear, using 'time' as your weapon.

The difference in these choices will be reflected in the 'fate of tactics' that will be confirmed in the following tables and examples. Even with the same numbers, changes in deployment, arrangement, and timelines can yield entirely different outcomes. So, keep your hypothesis in mind. Soon, numbers and scenarios will put that hypothesis to the test.

Charting the Course of Part 2: What You Will Encounter in the Next Segment

In the very next segment (2/3), we will translate theory into practice. We will throw the same troop sizes onto different battlefield canvases, running a “open-fragment-city” three-match simulation. In each match, we will examine combat tempo, distance pressure, supply loops, and command responsiveness using two or more comparative tables. Additionally, we will highlight decisive moments that break conventional wisdom as 'case studies'. Your points of observation are simple: who seizes initiative first, who maintains it longer, and who adapts more quickly. The answers lie hidden within the numbers and narratives.

Ready Check

I understand the peak criteria and fairness rules.
I am aware of the three types of battlefield canvases and the variables of seasons and supply.
I have obtained the power snapshot and evaluation panel with six items.

Now, let's get to the main point. It is time for the straight lines of shields and the curves of arrows to be drawn on the same map.

Advanced Discussion: The Engineering of the Plains' Arrows and Shield Walls, Who Will Crack First?

In the first segment of Part 2, we rearranged the power structure of the peak era in broad strokes. Now it's time to dive in with a magnifying glass. We will simulate a dense unfolding of numbers, cases, and a fictional battlefield setting. The key question is simple: Can the swift mobility and concentrated arrow storms of the Mongol Empire penetrate the dense defensive structures and trained Roman legions? At the same time, how does the vast aspect of the sea, specifically the enormous supply route of the Mediterranean, change the game?

Let's not rush to conclusions, but instead climb the ladder of tactics, operations, and strategy one rung at a time. Factors like speed and ammunition, the stamina of horses and the fatigue of soldiers, the cost structure of land and maritime transport, and the density of urban and fortress networks determine the final outcome. To capture the battlefield sense more closely, I will intersperse real-world cases with a virtual rematch.

Reading Tip: The analysis below is based on a "peak era standard." For Rome, this refers to the Trajan to Antoninus period, and for the Mongols, the capabilities of the early expansion period under Genghis Khan to Ogedei are assumed. Training levels, supply systems, and equipment quality are aligned with this baseline.

Dissecting Troop Composition: The Logic of Deployment Beyond Numbers

The Mongol Empire, the kingdom of cavalry tactics, employs a decimal system (arban-jahad-minqan-tumen), with archers forming the core of both light and heavy cavalry. In contrast, the Roman Empire revolves around heavy infantry, integrating the triangular cooperation of auxiliary archers, spearmen, and light cavalry. Although their physical proportions may be similar, their centers of gravity differ. The Mongols design battles by seizing "space," while the Romans define "points" to fix the fight.

Rome (Peak Era): Legionnaires (pilum + gladius + scutum) 55-65%, auxiliary archers and slingers 10-15%, light and heavy cavalry 20-30%, engineers and artillery (torsion ballista) 2-5%
Mongolia (Peak Era): Cavalry archers 60-70% (focused on composite bows), heavy cavalry 20-30% (spears and maces), siege personnel and engineers 5-10% (recruited from conquered territories)

The crux lies in the conclusion of firepower. We will examine the superior energy efficiency and rate of fire of the composite bow against the shock absorption capabilities of the Roman infantry shield wall, numerical representations of the battlefield rhythm created by both sides.

Comparison of Firepower and Personal Equipment (Average Peak Era Statistics, Regional and Production Variations Exist)
Item	Mongolian Composite Bow	Roman Pilum/Javelin	Roman/Eastern Style Composite Bow (Auxiliary Forces)
Effective Range	150-200m (when focusing fire)	20-30m (optimal for throwing), effective within 50m	120-160m
Firing Rate per Minute	6-9 shots (based on skill)	One throw (pre-gathering)	4-6 shots
Piercing Performance	Penetrates some lamellar and scale armor, suppresses exposed areas	High destructive power against shields and armor (elasticity and bending effects)	Limited penetration against heavy armor, advantageous for consecutive strikes
Ammunition Carrying Capacity (Individual)	60-90 shots (including reserve arrows)	2-3 units (pilum), with additional reserve spear	40-60 shots
Mobility Suitability	Optimized for mounted shooting	Concentration of firepower at deployment moment	Auxiliary archers, lateral suppression

When looking solely at firepower, the Mongols seize battlefield tempo through long-range and sustained fire. However, the Romans deliver a shock with a simultaneous throw of pilum just before the battle starts, followed by applying pressure with their shield wall, achieving 'momentary maximum output.' It becomes a contest between long-range suppression and close-range destructive power.

The Mathematics of Maneuver Warfare: Speed, Fatigue, and Supply Precedence

The mobility of the Mongol army is overwhelmingly evident in numbers. A typical tumen, possessing 3-5 horses per individual, can cover distances of 80-120 km a day through alternating riding. In comparison, the average marching speed of a Roman field army is around 25-35 km/day (based on road networks and lightweight supplies). In logistics, the key factors are stamina management and forage.

Mongolia: Each horse requires 8-10 kg of forage (hay and grains) daily, with local procurement and reconnaissance for pasture selection. Rivers and swamps significantly increase detour costs.
Rome: Road networks and warehouses (horrea) are interconnected with carts and ships. Systematization of grain, olive oil, and wine distribution. Speed drops sharply during winter and rainy seasons, but ship supplies become larger.

Marching and Supply Comparison (Assuming Field Army Units)
Index	Mongol Empire (Mobile Army)	Roman Empire (Field Army)
Average Movement Speed	60-80 km/day (alternating riding)	25-35 km/day (based on paved roads)
Supply Method	Local procurement + nomadic network (yam)	Road networks + warehouses + maritime transport (Mediterranean route)
Food and Forage Burden	Increased horse feed proportion, decreased human food burden	Increased human food proportion, moderate burden on animals (mules)
Weather Sensitivity	Vulnerable to monsoon, swamps, and jungles	Vulnerable to rainy seasons and muddy roads, mitigated by maritime supply routes
Operational Range	Widespread simultaneous strikes (dispersal-convergence)	Axial defense and guiding decisive battles

Battlefield Trap: At the point where the plains end, the advantages of Mongol horses begin to diminish. As forests, stone walls, and farmlands become denser, the angles for mounted shooting and mass movements become hindered. Conversely, the more the Romans move away from road networks, the efficiency of carts and supply transport drops significantly. The terrain becomes a game changer.

Case Study 1: The Shadow of Carrhae and the 'Antioch Plain' Virtual Rematch

"The lessons of real combat serve as insurance against repeating the same mistakes. However, when the power structure changes, so does the interpretation."

Rome carries trauma from Carrhae (53 BC). The concentrated formations of infantry collapsed under the pressure of Parthian cavalry and steppe maneuvers. From this case alone, one might conclude that "Rome is vulnerable to long-range mobility and pressure." However, during its peak, the Roman legions present a different picture. The proportion of auxiliary cavalry and archers increases, and the flexibility of formation changes rises. Syrian and Cretan archers, Numidian and Gallic cavalry are included in certain proportions.

Let’s set up a virtual scenario. The location is the plains north of Antioch, a mix of open land with rivers and cultivated fields nearby. The Mongols begin with preemptive reconnaissance and provocative fire. The Romans narrow their formation and deploy auxiliary archers for crossfire. The central legionnaires maintain distance with pilum in hand.

Mongol Act 1 (Circular): Light cavalry approaches in a crescent shape, applying pressure with fires from above at 150m-120m.
Roman Response: Auxiliary archers and slingers are positioned in the second line, opening firing ports behind the shield wall and layering barrages.
Mongol Act 2: Some breakthrough groups stab in to 60-80m, retreating and luring. Adjusting encirclement angles from the left and right wings.
Roman Card: Timing the simultaneous throw of pilum to coincide with the end of the "false breakthrough" and the start of genuine charges. Positioning cavalry reserves on the flanks to limit pursuit angles.

Textbook-wise, the Mongol maneuver appears advantageous, but in a plain intertwined with farmland, waterways, and stone walls, the collective acceleration of horses is disrupted. The Romans aim to pin down the 'key points' to halt the battle, while the Mongols repeatedly pressure the Romans' flanks with large rotations. The outcome hinges on supply sustainability and the resilience of incoming lateral forces. As the exchange of arrows prolongs, the damage to Roman shields and armor accumulates, but if auxiliary archers are sufficient, they can minimize losses through cover fire.

Case Study 2: The Danube-Carpathian Defense, "The Chain of Fortresses" vs "The Art of Evasion"

In 1241, during the Battle of Mohi, European forces experienced the Mongol textbook of dust, luring, and regrouping. However, the defensive network of Europe at the time was not Roman-style. The Danube-Rhine network of the peak Roman Empire was structured as a seamless connection of roads, fortresses, warehouses, and crossings. "The Chain of Fortresses" emphasizes networks of reporting, delaying, and regrouping over combat power.

Roman-style Defense: Fortresses along the Danube at equal intervals, spreading alerts via beacon and cavalry communication, controlling crossings over rivers and fords.
Mongolian-style Incursion: Utilizing fords, reed beds, and frozen conditions, small groups (squads) achieve multiple breakthroughs before regrouping, with command via flags, horns, and messengers.

Cost-Time Analysis of Fortress Networks vs Evasive Maneuvering (Conceptual Figures)
Index	Roman Fortress Network	Mongol Evasive Maneuvering
Alert Spread Time (100 km Segment)	6-10 hours (beacons and cavalry)	—
Breakthrough Time (Bypassing Rivers and Fortresses)	—	1-3 days (ford exploration and bridge construction)
Logistical Loss Rate (per week)	Low (linked with warehouses and roads)	Medium (dispersed through detours and reconnaissance)
Command Cohesion	Medium-High (dispatching reserves via roads)	High (design of dispersal-convergence)
Combat Induction	Favorable from fixed points	Favorable in open spaces

The crux is that while the Romans segment the battlefield with the triad of "river-fortress-road," the Mongols create linkages through "fords-night marches-bridges" and maneuver back in. The outcome hinges on which side can break the opponent's rhythm faster. The Romans can regroup without losing their urban zones even when they maneuver around, while the Mongols can use their detours as opportunities (raiding unreinforced areas).

The Science of Siege: Two Ways to Overcome Walls

Siege warfare is a strength for both civilizations. Contrary to common misconceptions, the Mongols are not weak in sieges. They combined the engineers and siege engines (treadwheel and counterweight types) acquired in northern China and Central Asia to open doors through long-term sieges, psychological warfare, hostage-taking, and false surrenders. Rome is literally the land of engineers. They standardized trenches, earthworks, siege towers, galleries, and torsion artillery to 'construct' cities when necessary.

Siege Equipment and Tactics Comparison
Item	Mongol Empire	Roman Empire
Main Siege Engine	Rotary Counterweight Catapult (Chinese/Persian technology)	Torsion Ballista, Scorpio, Siege Tower
Tactical Package	PsyOps, Feigned Retreat, Negotiation (inducing surrender)	Earthworks, Galleries, Trenches, Blockades (isolation)
Sustained Operations	Local Sourcing Capability for Engineers and Laborers↑	Organized Engineering Corps, Manuals↑
Supply Lines	Local Arrow, Wood, Food Requisition	Combined Road Network and Maritime Transport
Weaknesses	Increased Strain on Horse Feed during Long Sieges↑	Reduced Mobility during Sieges↓

Siege warfare consumes time. The Mongols prefer to lure field armies away and deal with them on open ground, practicing 'battlefield separation'. Conversely, the Romans force decisive battles at key positions along the axes instead of losing cities. At this point, maritime transport becomes a 'time-buying device' for the Romans.

Maritime Variables: The Weak Link for the Mongols. Their ability to cross the sea is limited, and if river estuaries, islands, and coastal cities withstand maritime supply, the edge of mobility dulls. In contrast, in the eastern Mediterranean with its extended coastlines, the Romans can repeatedly resupply and regroup by tightly connecting cities, ports, and roads.

Combination of Firepower: Shield Wall + Archers vs Cavalry + Composite Bow

In battle, it's not about individual units but combos that make the difference. The Mongol composite bow + mobility focuses on "approach-retreat-secure flank angles," while the Roman shield wall + auxiliary archers excel in "cover fire-impact throws-push." The composite bow utilizes the height and speed of horses to establish firing angles and arcs, probing the gaps in the shield. The Romans reduce the upper angles with overlapping shields and throw the pilum at the decisive moment to break the enemy formation.

Spot Point 1: Wind. Strong crosswinds reduce the accuracy of fire from horseback. The Roman shield wall carries relatively less risk.
Spot Point 2: Ground. Cultivated mounds and stone borders disrupt the angles for horse hooves, hindering Mongol acceleration.
Spot Point 3: Accumulated Fatigue. If arrow exchanges continue for more than 2-3 hours, fatigue accumulates in shields, arms, and shoulders. Roman rotations are crucial, while Mongol horse replacement is key.

Command, Information, and Psychological Warfare: The Moment Signalers Change the Game

The Mongols create a 'relative time advantage' using flags, horns, and beacons. Their standardized tactics of dispersion-luring-consolidation allow even small units to quickly find their place within the larger picture. The Romans benefit from a tightly woven command line like that of an eagle and the experience of centurions and tribunes, resulting in an 'unbreakable formation'. In the golden age of Rome, their information network is also robust, collecting intel through merchants, settlers, and messengers, and quickly disseminating it along the road network.

In psychological warfare, the Mongols employ classical techniques such as spreading fear through hostages and prisoners and closing the encirclement after a feigned retreat. The Romans, in contrast, emphasize 'law and order', promising tax and safety guarantees in occupied territories to ease internal resistance. Who controls the atmosphere of the battlefield is already decided halfway through by diplomacy, propaganda, and prisoner management before the first clash.

Summary of Key Points

Open Ground - Long-range Combat: Mongol Empire Dominance. Rain of arrows and mobility disrupts formations.
Fortresses and Urban Areas - Coastal Belt: Roman Empire Dominance. Time gained through the triangle of roads + ports + warehouses.
Intermediate Terrain (Mixed Cultivated Areas and Waterways): Mutual Exposure of Weaknesses. Timing of the pilum vs. brain game of deception breaches.

Maritime and River Control: The Invisible Second Battlefield

Often overlooked, rivers and seas are the highways of logistics. Roman triremes and merchant fleets, along with river vessels, supply cities and fortresses. Although the nomadic Mongol army is skilled at crossing rivers, they are weak in ship operation and maritime blockades. This difference becomes more pronounced in prolonged warfare.

Maritime and River Control Comparison
Indicator	Roman Empire	Mongol Empire
Maritime Transport Capacity	Large Grain Ship Network (Alexandria-Ostia)	Limited (Local Ship Requisition Level)
River Control	Organized Operation of Bridges, Ferries, and Boats	Possible Installation of Temporary Bridges and Ferries, Weak Sustained Operation
Supply Flexibility	Bypasses Road Blockages via Maritime Routes	Increased Land Dependence, Higher Bypass Costs for Rivers and Marshes
Strategic Effect	Maintaining Lifelines of Besieged Cities	Disadvantage for Long Sieges of Coastal Cities

Details of Weapons and Equipment: Small but Significant Differences

Seemingly minor differences in equipment can turn the tide of battle. Roman mail (chain armor) and segmentata (plate armor) demonstrate different resistances to cutting and piercing. The Mongol lamellar armor is lightweight and flexible, making it advantageous for prolonged horseback riding. Factors such as arrowhead shapes (triangular, leaf-shaped, armor-piercing), variations of the pilum (bending after piercing shields with flexible metal shafts), and the curvature and thickness of shields can change the “outcome at the moment of contact.”

Momentary Impact of the Pilum: Even if it doesn’t pierce armor, if it embeds in a shield and disrupts the center of gravity, the next moment the line of spears will shake.
Repeated Pressure of the Composite Bow: If continuous strikes are made on the same area, leather strings and metal rivets will loosen.
Cavalry Equipment: The high supply rate of stirrups for the Mongols enhances stability in thrusting with spears, increasing momentary firepower in close combat.

Command Decisions: Forcing Decisive Battles vs. Forcing Attrition

The essence of the strategy is as follows. The Romans have a greater incentive to force a decisive battle. To defend cities and maintain taxes, they must engage in combat to drive the enemy away. The Mongols, conversely, have a greater motivation to avoid decisive battles and force attrition. They choose the terrain and wait for the costs for the Romans to skyrocket as supply lines lengthen. Which side can impose their “game” on the opponent becomes the final variable.

At this point, the Mediterranean takes center stage again. The Romans can reduce losses and buy time through switching between maritime and land routes, while the Mongols aim to disrupt the decisions of each city with “fear, negotiation, feigned surrender, and raids" to cut this time short. The fine-tuning of tactics, timing of psychological warfare, and density of information warfare create a wave.

Physical Stamina Viewed in Numbers: A 7-day Loop of Plains, Cities, and Rivers

Assumption: Mixed terrain (50% plains, 30% cultivated land, 20% rivers and cities), both sides' field armies engage in combat for 7 days. Supply, fatigue, and losses accumulate. The numerical interpretations are simplified for observing “trends.”

Trends of Accumulated Variables over 7 Days (Conceptual Simulation)
Variable	Days 1-2	Days 3-4	Days 5-7
Mongol Mobility Advantage	Very High (Successful Reconnaissance and Luring)	Moderate (Complex Terrain, Accumulated Fatigue)	Moderate to Low (Pressure from Feed and Horse Replacements)
Roman Defensive Stability	Moderate (Establishing Positions)	Moderate to High (Stable Supply Lines)	High (When Maritime Supply is Activated)
City and Fortress Status	Mixed Discouragement/Confusion	Stabilizes when Supplies are Secured	Moral Recovery upon Arrival of Rescue Ships
Combat Attrition Patterns	Increased Sporadic Engagements	Attempts at Decisive Engagements	Tug-of-war between Siege and Breakthrough

Fact-checking for Practical Preparation: The Mongols experienced decreased mobility efficiency in river, rainy, and forested terrains during their European campaign, while they bridged gaps by deploying engineers for urban sieges in China and Central Asia. The Romans, while fighting the Parthians, Sassanids, Goths, and Dacians, accumulated 'defense that does not get swayed by mobility' and 'standardization of sieges'. The achievements of their golden age are a direct result of this learning.

Case Blending: When the 'Running Bow' Meets the 'Moving Fortress'

Let's visualize a decisive scene. In the morning, the Mongols open fire with crescent-shaped shots on the open plains. By noon, the Romans narrow their shield wall and counterattack with crossfire from auxiliary archers, while cavalry reserves attach to prevent flank breakthroughs. By dusk, the Mongols extend the Roman line with a feigned retreat, cross shallow waterways, and regroup to close both flanks. If the Romans have prepared obstacles and earthen mounds (field engineering possible within a day), the angle of charge will be dulled. The next day, maritime supplies arrive in the city, replenishing Roman food and arrows. The battlefield resets to zero. When this reset button is on the Roman side, the Mongols aim to accelerate speed to end the game 'before supplies arrive'. It’s a race against time.

Thus far, we have examined in detail how the strengths and weaknesses of both sides overlap in the triad of terrain, time, and supply. In the next segment, we will reveal a practical 'checklist' and immediately usable 'scenario-specific execution guide' based on this analysis. Your understanding of combat will transform into a more practical approach. Let’s make your mental battlefield come to life.

Roman Empire · Mongol Empire · Golden Age · Cavalry Tactics · Composite Bow · Siege Warfare · Roman Legion · Logistics · Mediterranean

Execution Guide: Roman Empire vs Mongol Empire, How to Command

It's time to take action. The final segment of Part 2 provides you with a battle blueprint, a practical guide, and a checklist that you can actually hold and manipulate. Whether you are preparing a team-building war game, recreating it as a board game, TRPG, or simulator, or conducting an educational workshop, it's structured into applicable step-by-step procedures. The key is straightforward. The Roman Empire's heavy infantry system showcases organization and endurance, while the Mongol Empire emphasizes mobile warfare and composite bow-based firepower and maneuvering, which collide in a realistic scenario with numerical values and procedures. Keywords such as logistics, shield wall, cavalry tactics, siege warfare, and tactical terrain have been integrated into this protocol.

Follow along step by step, starting from battlefield selection to force composition, and learn how to calculate the effects of weather and morale. By checking off each step, you will experience the process of directly answering the question, “Can the shield of the Mediterranean withstand the arrows of the steppe?”

Target Audience: History-based strategy board games/miniatures, simulation classes, corporate leadership war games, content creators, historical education settings.

Recommended Time: 120–180 minutes (one field scenario), 3–6 hours (campaign with 3 rounds) / Participants: 2–8 people / Equipment: Hexagonal/square grid maps, tokens/miniatures, dice, speed and morale tracking sheets.

1. Battlefield Setup: Design Terrain-Weather-Logistics First

Terrain Selection: Plains (enhances mobile warfare), Hills (enhances observation and defense), Rivers/Streams (crossing risks), Forests (reduces mobility, enhances ambush), Cities/Fortresses (siege warfare).
Weather Variables: Clear (optimal for movement and shooting), Strong Winds (reduces range), Rain/Mud (slows infantry and vehicle speed), Cold Snap (reduces horse endurance), Sandstorms (decreases visibility and command control).
Logistics Conditions: Days of food and fodder, ammunition (arrows/throws), siege equipment (siege towers/catapults) setup time, field discipline (desertion/looting penalties).

At this stage, 30% of the victory or defeat is already determined. The choice of tactical terrain shakes up the efficiency of troops. For instance, if strong winds blow, the effective range of the composite bow is significantly reduced, while high humidity/mud conditions slow the heavy infantry’s concentrated movement.

2. Force Composition: Create a Roster (Based on Peak Era)

Rome (Field Type): 8–10 cohorts of legion infantry, 2 cohorts of auxiliary archers, 1–2 ala of cavalry, and 1 engineering/artillery support. Assumes cooperation between shield wall (testudo) and mounted infantry.
Mongolia (Mobile Type): 5–6 heavy cavalry archers in tumen (reduced structure), 1 elite vanguard, 1 squad of engineers and artillery specialists, and 1 logistics team to maintain speed. Includes units for maneuvering/deception.

If possible, create “force cards” that quantify each unit's health (HP), morale (M), speed (S), firepower (F), and armor (A). This is useful for quick assessments.

3. Command Phase: Objectives-Discipline-Disruption

Set Objectives: Rome specifies breakthrough points and strongholds, while Mongolia designates encirclement and flank attack axes.
Discipline Check: Rome communicates commands through a chain of command and signals (trumpets/flags), while Mongolia uses flags, beacons, and mounted couriers for orders.
Declare Disruption: Mongolian feigned retreat, Roman fake siege preparations (bait), reconnaissance information warfare.

The “most expensive mistake” in the command phase is when objectives become unclear. In simple terms, time and space are weapons for Mongolia, while order and pressure are weapons for Rome.

4. Combat Phase: Rounds-Stage Progression

4-1 Shooting Phase: Mongolia has a range advantage (weather adjustments apply). Roman auxiliary archers and artillery respond.
4-2 Movement Phase: Mongolia executes flank deployment/encirclement, while Rome adjusts formations and maintains spacing.
4-3 Collision Phase: Rome charges in a concentrated formation/shield wall pressure, while Mongolia minimizes contact and retreats with fire.
4-4 Morale Check: Reflects damage/command distance/weather and terrain adjustments.

The more collisions that occur, the more favorable it is for Rome, while avoiding collisions is advantageous for Mongolia. Remember, both sides have different definitions of a “good fight.”

Warning: If the command distance remains outside the range (commander-unit basis) for more than two consecutive rounds, the morale penalty for Roman units increases, and the endurance penalty for Mongolian horses accumulates as they move further from supply points.

5. Logistics and Endurance Tracking: Feeling the Numbers

Rome: A three-tier system of supply depots-front bases-line of battle. Each cohort in the line must check supplies every two rounds.
Mongolia: Horse replacements (2–3 horses), lightweight supplies. Endurance depends on the number of horses and the availability of grazing land.

Logistics is not just background noise. The number of arrows, consumption of bread/hay, and the speed of siege equipment deployment determine the actual actions taken. Adjust the logistics safety index (0–3) each round to maintain tension.

6. Victory Condition Design

Field: Successful encirclement (Mongolia) or decisive breakthrough/cavalry defeat (Rome).
Siege: Breach of walls within a certain number of rounds (common to both Mongolian and Roman), collapse of defender morale.
Campaign: 2 wins out of 3 rounds or superiority based on cumulative logistics index.

Clearly defining victory conditions reduces unnecessary attrition. This leads to fewer hasty decisions and more strategic calculations.

7. Quick Assessment Rules (Light Rules)

Range Check: Mongolian composite bow maximum range > Roman spear/archer range.
When applying the shield wall (testudo): Mongolian shooting damage is reduced by 30–50%, and mobility decreases by 20%.
Upon successful feigned retreat: Roman morale drops by 1 level, increasing the risk of separating and scattering units during pursuit.
Hill/Forest Terrain: Mongolian maneuvering -20–30%, Roman shooting visibility -10–15%.

Even with just these light rules, the character is distinctly revealed. If you want to add more details, expand with the checklist below.

Role-Specific Execution Checklist: “If You Were the Commander”

Roman Empire Commander Checklist

Line Design: Center should be concentrated cohorts, with auxiliary archers and cavalry ala on the left and right as buffers.
Siege Preparation: Construct temporary earthen ramparts, artillery positions, and stakes to prevent cavalry breakthroughs.
Shield Wall Transition Rule: Applicable only when Mongolian fire is concentrated, to be released during pursuit/breakthrough timing.
Cavalry Operations: Direct pursuit is prohibited. Use only for blocking flanks and preventing rear ambush.
Command Control: Execute retreat prohibitions/directional changes immediately with trumpet and rider signals. Do not deviate from command distance.
Logistics: Two or more forward supply points for food and resources. Position to respond to destruction on either side.
Morale Management: Set rotation period for vanguard cohort (e.g., every 3 rounds). Switch to retreat immediately if loss rate exceeds 30%.

Roman Victory Condition: Increase the rate of contact battles, withstand arrows with the shield wall, and break the Mongolian encirclement loop.

Mongol Empire Commander Checklist

Prioritize Reconnaissance: Conduct reconnaissance for at least 2 rounds before battle. Identify Roman cavalry/archer positions and terrain features.
Shooting Belt: Layer shooting zones (long-range to mid-range) in front of the Roman line for maximum effect.
Deception Operations: Three stages of feigned retreat, inducing separation, and flanking encirclement. The bait units are assumed to be sacrificed.
Horse Replacement Routine: Replace horses every 2 rounds. Change before endurance drops below 50%.
Lightweight Logistics: Adapt arrow supply routes flexibly, and align fodder with the grazing map for nomadic routes.
Encirclement Angle: Minimum 120 degrees, optimal 180 degrees. Use dust and smoke to cut off Roman command distance.
Decisive Strike Timing: After Roman cavalry overruns, focus fire on gaps, then exploit weakened areas for local incursions.

Mongol Victory Condition: Avoid contact battles while reducing health and morale, and sequentially crush isolated cohorts.

Terrain-Specific Playbook: How to Turn the Battlefield to Your Advantage

Plains

The vast plains are the stage for cavalry tactics and mobile warfare. Mongolia should implement crescent encirclement, while Rome should respond with stakes and occupy high ground.

Mongolia: Long-range harassment → feigned retreat → encirclement fire. Prepare for horse replacements.
Rome: Endure approaches with shield wall → preserve rear cavalry → reduce encirclement angle.

Hills

This terrain provides observational advantages. The outcome is likely to be decided in reconnaissance battles. Utilize Mongolia's visibility advantage, but beware of excessive mobility losses on steep slopes.

Forests and Rivers

Forests slow movement and restrict visibility. Rivers expose critical weaknesses at crossing points. Rome excels at river defenses, while Mongolia resolves this with night raids and flanking maneuvers.

Cities and Fortresses (Siege)

Siege warfare is a battle of “time and engineering.” Rome has strong capabilities in engineering, artillery, and wall repairs, while Mongolia utilizes prolonged sieges, psychological warfare, and environments that induce disease. In siege warfare mode, track public sentiment and fear (rumors and negotiation for surrender) metrics.

During a siege, if logistics are cut off, even superior units will crumble under “hunger.” It is recommended to manage access to drinking water separately.

7-Day Campaign Plan (For Learning and Reenactment)

Day 1: Select the battlefield, roll weather data, and create force cards.
Day 2: Engage in reconnaissance (mini-game of information warfare), declare disguises and deceptions.
Day 3: First field engagement (light rules), record morale and fatigue accumulation.
Day 4: Redesign supply routing, introduce prisoner and reward rules.
Day 5: Scenario branching for siege or pursuit.
Day 6: Final round (full rules), rolling for command losses and unexpected situations.
Day 7: Tally achievements, re-experiment alternative strategies (if-scenario repeated twice).

[가상대결] 관련 이미지 9 — Image courtesy of Leonhard_Niederwimmer

Adjustment Guide for Assessments: Do Not Rely on Instincts, Use Numbers

Applying the following adjustments to your war game or simulation will help maintain balance. However, adjust the numbers by ±10–20% to fit your system.

Mongolian composite bow long-range damage: Base X, strong winds -30%, rain/mud -20%, fog -15%.
Roman shield wall defense: Base +40%, only +10% applies when hit from the sides or rear.
Cavalry Fatigue: -10% endurance for each consecutive round of sprinting, instant +25% recovery upon horse replacement.
Siege Equipment Installation: Each engineering squad has a construction rate of 8–12% per round. Rain reduces this by -30%.
Morale Adjustments: Commander casualties -15%, witnessing line collapse -10%, loot/rewards +5–10%.

Historical Context Note: The peak Roman Empire is characterized by strengths in engineering, administration, road networks, and camp construction, while the Mongol Empire is defined by strengths in mobility, reconnaissance, and combined tactics (shooting + deception + encirclement). Considering the scale and temporal differences between the two is crucial for designing adjustments in “the same unit of measurement.”

Data Summary Table (Light Profile)

Item	Roman Empire (Field Cohorts)	Mongol Empire (Cavalry Archers)	Tactical Significance
Average Battlefield Speed	Infantry 3–4 km/h, Cavalry 6–8 km/h	Cavalry 10–14 km/h (with periodic horse replacements)	Mongolia has superiority in rotation and flanking
Effective Range	Archers 80–120m, Spears 20–30m	Composite Bow 150–250m (situation dependent)	Mongolia has the upper hand in early battlefield exchanges
Close Combat Endurance	High (shield wall, heavy infantry)	Medium (optimal when minimizing contact)	The ratio of contact battles is a variable
Supply Dependence	Warehouse-type (grains, water, siege ammunition)	Nomadic-type (fodder, arrows)	Superiority shifts based on terrain/weather
Command Control	Trumpets/flags; maintain close lines	Mounted couriers, flags, dispersed commands	A battle of visibility and command distance
Siege Capabilities	Excellent at engineering and fortifications	Strength in prolonged sieges and psychological warfare	Contrasting tactics in urban warfare

Five Training Drills: Immediately Applicable to Team Building/Lessons

Flank Blocking Drill (Rome): Left and right cohorts alternate movement → absorb fire → block cavalry. Objective: Reduce encirclement angle.
Feigned Retreat Drill (Mongolia): Bait-separate-pursue reversal fire. Objective: Split enemy line.
Logistics Crisis Response (Common): Survive 2 rounds while logistics index is 0 → rapidly decrease morale and fatigue.
River Defense (Rome): Complete construction of stakes, spear walls, and bridges along the riverbank within 2 rounds.
Night Reconnaissance (Mongolia): Scan the battlefield and design encirclement nets under radio/signal restrictions.

“A cavalry that loses speed is like a bow that loses arrows. An infantry that loses order is like a legion that loses its shield.” — From the war game rulebook

Quick Response Cards for Different Situations

Rome: Arrow Rampage Scenario

Immediately switch to shield wall, adjust line inclination (reduce side exposure).
Retreat auxiliary archers, attempt to collapse the shooting belt with concentrated artillery.
Cavalry is prohibited from deceptive pursuits; instead, maintain the side defense line.

Mongolia: Crisis Just Before Breakthrough

Reduce morale in the breakthrough area with brutal shooting first.
Maintain rotation speed with rear horse replacements and reserves charging in.
Block Roman command visibility with smoke/dust, separating command distance.

Top 3 Errors: (1) Solo pursuit by Roman cavalry, (2) Long-term engagement by Mongolia, (3) Neglecting supply index. Even one mistake among these can drastically change the tide of battle.

Execution Checklist (Print Recommended)

Common Preparations

Print battlefield map (choose one from plains/hills/rivers/cities), weather dice.
Power cards: Fill in HP/M/S/F/A values, secure command distance and morale adjustment slots.
Supply sheet: Food/feed/arrows/siege ammunition, index scale from 0 to 3.
Signal set: Roman (trumpet/flag), Mongolian (banner/messenger) tokens.

Round Start Checklist

Weather determination → apply range and speed modifiers.
Share reconnaissance results (or maintain asymmetrical information).
Adjust supply index (reflecting withdrawal/destruction events).
Reveal command cards simultaneously, determine priority.

Round End Checklist

Morale changes: Reflect losses of commanders/allied collapse/rewards for achievements.
Fatigue/endurance: Record infantry replacements and horse changes.
Handling casualties/prisoners: Convert power for the next round.

Application: Expanding to Content/Education/Experience Programs

Education: History-mathematics integrated classes (calculating speed/range/supply project).
Experience: Team-building wargame (Roman team vs Mongolian team), assign role cards (commander/scout/engineer/supply officer).
Content: Live streams/podcasts—participate in decision-making through strategic voting each round.
Tourism/Exhibitions: Demonstration of troop movements with terrain dioramas + AR overlays.

Reference for SEO key terms: Roman Empire, Mongol Empire, Mobile Warfare, Composite Bow, Heavy Infantry, Siege Warfare, Cavalry Tactics, Supply Lines, Shield Wall, Tactical Terrain

Practical Tips: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1. Can Rome win in the field?

It is possible. The conditions are clear: 1) Terrain that hinders movement such as hills and rivers, 2) Accurate timing for shield wall transitions, 3) Prohibition of pursuit during Mongolian feigned retreats. If these three align, it increases the likelihood of engaging in contact battles.

Q2. When does Mongolia gain an advantage in siege warfare?

When they can deplete the morale and food supply within the city through prolonged sieges, and stimulate psychological warfare (inducing surrender) and epidemic environments. This is not a rapid decision-making scenario like in the field, but rather a method that cuts with the blade of time.

Q3. How is the supply index utilized?

Update the supply index (0-3) each round, and if it reaches 0, apply cumulative penalties to morale, speed, and firepower. For Rome, use warehouses and road networks as representative indicators; for Mongolia, use horses and pastures.

Simulation Recipe: 3-Round Campaign

Round 1: Engagement on the plains. Mongolia scores first due to mobility advantage. Rome focuses on minimizing losses.
Round 2: Complex terrain of hills and rivers. If Rome successfully defends the crossing, it results in a tie. Mongolia must explore bypass routes.
Round 3: Field battle near the city + semi-siege. The supply index and morale will determine the outcome.

Meta strategy summary: Rome must not forget the three-part strategy of “compression-contact-replacement,” while Mongolia should not neglect the three-part strategy of “reconnaissance-deception-siege.”

After Action Review Template

Results compared to objectives: Compare victory conditions with actual outcomes.
Terrain and weather influence: Which modifiers were felt the most?
Command control: Instances of command distance violations, analysis of signal failures.
Supply routing: Where did bottlenecks occur?
Lessons → Modifications for the next round: Reflect in the checklist.

Note: The goal is not to find a historical 'correct answer', but to experience the interaction of variables. Do not view numbers as fixed truths; instead, adjust them according to your objectives.

Key Summary (At a Glance)

  Roman Empire: Uses shield wall, heavy infantry, engineers, and supply systems to increase contact battles for victory.
Mongol Empire: Avoids contact battles and reduces morale through mobile warfare, composite bows, reconnaissance, and deception.
Terrain, weather, and supply may require ±10-20% adjustments according to house rules.
Turning points of the battle: Responding to feigned retreats (Rome), adhering to breakthrough timings (Mongolia), maintaining supply lines (common).
Expandable to education, experience, and content: Optimal for data-driven decision-making training.

Conclusion

In Part 1, we addressed the “why.” We compared the organization and infrastructure built by the Roman Empire with the speed and integrated tactics implemented by the Mongol Empire, confirming that differences in time, environment, and purpose alter the shape of victory. In the subsequent Part 2, we transformed that “why” into “how.” From battlefield setup, power composition, command and combat phases, to supply and morale tracking, and terrain-specific playbooks—we provided rules and figures for you to command and judge directly.

The essence is clear. The shield of the Mediterranean can block the arrows of the steppe. However, that shield only harnesses its true power when layered with order and time, supply and engineering. Conversely, the arrows of the steppe are most lethal when they control the "contact" itself through speed, deception, reconnaissance, and siege. In the field, it is the designer of the frequency of contact battles who determines the outcome, while in sieges, it is the one who controls time who wins.

Now it’s your turn. Based on the provided execution guide, checklist, and data summary table, unfold the battlefield yourself. Change the numbers, alter the terrain, and experiment with combinations of “what if” until conclusions crystallize at your fingertips. Lastly, remember: a good wargame does not impose answers on history. Instead, it prompts better questions. In your battlefield today, which side—shield or arrows—posed more questions?