Sam Jones

March 7, 2011

Honors lit- Period 1

Comparing and Contrasting Roman and Mongolian Society

The cavalry rushes across the plain, swords swinging and arrows flying. They charge into

the enemy, the rider’s fur clothing stained with blood. On the backs of their horses, they carry all

they need for their nomadic lifestyle. In the west, hundreds of years earlier, armored soldiers

marched across the battlefield, protected by an impenetrable box of shields. They would never

have considered the future cavalry’s method of uncontrolled, frenzied charge. The Mongols and

their nomadic, barbaric lifestyle differed greatly from the Romans in terms of war, dress and

housing.

The Mongols used tactics that put the lives of their soldiers at great risk. They charged

the enemy, and often encircled him. However, if defeat was imminent, the Mongols retreated.

This forced the enemy to spread out in groups, in an effort to pursue the retreating Mongols

down. The Mongols then slaughtered the small groups one by one, until the army was killed or

surrendered. The Romans used less offensive tactics, often destroying the supply of food until

the enemy starved or was defeated. They would use the captured food stores to support their own

troops, allowing them to wait any length of time the enemy may take before giving up. However,

the Mongols and the Romans differed in peace, as well as war time.

The Mongolian dress included clothing made from the fur of goats, a type of dress called

a del, and hats. All of their clothing had to be made to help protect them from the harsh cold of

the Asian Steppes where they resided. The color of clothing could range from bright and vibrant

to dull, but did not hold a special meaning in the Mongolian society. The Romans, however, did

not make clothes for warmth; if they were cold, they wore extra layers. Their location in the

Mediterranean did not have a harsh climate, so warmth was unimportant. Tunics were worn by

the military and commoners, and free citizens wore togas. Colors on men’s clothing often

showed the wearer’s social status, while women’s clothing could be any color. The differences

between Mongolian and Roman clothing may seem great, yet are minor when compared to the

variations between their housing.

The Mongols lived a nomadic life, carrying all of their possessions with them. Their

housing consisted of little more than tents made of felt, which were set up in groups of three or

more. These groups never stayed in one place for long before moving to areas that were safer or

offered more resources. The Romans, however, lived in more substantial dwellings. Roman

houses were made of wood or even brick, and featured rooms, courtyards, and balconies. While

they did not have running water or many other technologies we take for granted today, the

houses were far more advanced than those of the Mongols. The differences in their housings

showed the permanence of their society. The Mongolians were not a fixed society, so their

dwellings did not support that kind of lifestyle.

There are many differences between the Roman and Mongolian cultures and customs.

Their fighting tactics varied greatly, as did their clothing and dwellings. However, both founded

great empires that covered large amounts of land, regardless of their differences. These empires

still have an influence today in our buildings, military tactics, and some clothing. They also

demonstrated that the trappings of a society do not reflect its impact, but rather their innovation,

spirit, and organization. In that, these societies were very similar.

Works Cited

"S t ra t eg y an d T ac t i c s . " Th e R om an Mi l i t a r y . N .p . , n .d . Web . 7 M ar

2 0 11 . <h t t p : / / r om an mi l i t a r y. n e t / s t r a t eg y/ r e s o u r ce> .

O es t mo en , P er . "T he Mo n go l Mi l i t a r y M i gh t . " Col d S i b er i a . N . p . , J an .

1 8 , 20 02 . W eb . 7 M ar 2 01 1 .

<h t tp : / / w w w. co ld s ib e r i a .o r g /m on mi gh t . h t m> .

“T h e Mo n go l s i n Wo r l d H i s t o r y. ” A s i a t o p i cs i n W or ld H i s to r y, 2 00 4 .

W eb . 15 Feb 2 01 1 .

< h t tp : / / a f e . e a s i a . co l um bi a . edu / mo n go l s / ch i n a / ch in a3_ e .h tm >

“T h e Mo n go l Em pi r e . ” A l l Em pi r es , Feb 2 00 7 . W eb . 17 Feb 2 01 1 .

< h t tp : / / w w w. a l l emp i re s . com/ a r t i c l e / i n d ex .p hp? q =T h e_ Mo n go l _E mpi r e

>