Who would win... Caesar or Ghengis?

[Dondrei]

They arrive at the battle at the same time. Period.

You mean without any knowledge of the other army's proximity? Then I'd say the advantage would probably go to the Mongols. But this is a pretty unnatural occurrence. Two armies just blundering into each other is quite rare. And it destroys the whole factor of strategy, without which Caesar is crippled. It would be like taking Khan's cavalry away.

With your logic, one could easily say the Mongol scouts would have picked up the Romans, they would have set up fortifications, leading to a stalemate.

Not sure that's a stalemate. I think the Romans have a distinct advantage in siege warfare, a form of battle they were well accustomed to. Caesar in particular is one of history's greatest masters of that art. On the other hand, without his mobility Khan loses his greatest advantage. I think if he gets pinned to one spot for any reason then he's going to be in serious trouble.

[Module88]

You mean without any knowledge of the other army's proximity? Then I'd say the advantage would probably go to the Mongols. But this is a pretty unnatural occurrence. Two armies just blundering into each other is quite rare. And it destroys the whole factor of strategy, without which Caesar is crippled. It would be like taking Khan's cavalry away.

Let's face it. It's infinitely more probable than a Mongol Army going back into time without their gunpowder to face the Roman Army. It's just for convenience's sake.

Not sure that's a stalemate. I think the Romans have a distinct advantage in siege warfare, a form of battle they were well accustomed to. Caesar in particular is one of history's greatest masters of that art. On the other hand, without his mobility Khan loses his greatest advantage. I think if he gets pinned to one spot for any reason then he's going to be in serious trouble.

Khan was very good at siege warfare as well.

[bladesyz]

Khan was very good at siege warfare as well.

Genghis Khan faced his share of sieges, but I wouldn't say that he is particularly adept at it. At his core, his specialization is in open field combat and maneuvers.

Khan mostly relied on cannons and fear (surrender and I'll spare you, resist and I will slaughter you to the man) to take down fortified cities.

However, that said, wooden palisades erected hastily and under enemy fire, however experienced the builders are, could hardly be call "siege warfare". It is doubtful that the palisades would survive concentrated artillery fire from ballistae and catapults.

If it comes to siege warfare, it'll just turn into an artillery showdown, and perhaps treachery, hardly a fitting battle for two military giants.

[IstinkTherefourIAM]

the question is flawed.

the question should be who will win.. freet or durf?