Who would win... Caesar or Ghengis?

[Ron Burgundy]

I'm not so sure about that. I see Little Caesar countering by stabbing Khan with his trident, and when asked what he wants on his Pizza Pizza before he dies, Khan replies "Kosher pepperoni". That's when Caesar bites off Khan's face.

[Ash Housewares]

if the Romans could rather easily, with pikemen, form as such that horses would not want to charge them but... Mongols had rather proficient mounted archers which would force the Romans on the offensive rather than be bled to death by arrows and then there would be the openning for the more mobile Mongols to exploit

furthermore, the Mongols most often gained victory as outnumbered invaders, should their numbers be similar I cannot envision victory for Caesar

Caesar had first rate troops and artillery but the Mongols are used to fighting the odds, and I have to think they could find and exploit the weak point of their enemy

also worth mentioning is that alot of other factors played into their successes, Caesar's politicking to divide his opponents and Khan's use of fear tactics and psychological warfare

I could say more but we're trying to keep conditions of battle vague

[memememe173]

if the Romans could rather easily, with pikemen, form as such that horses would not want to charge them but... Mongols had rather proficient mounted archers which would force the Romans on the offensive rather than be bled to death by arrows and then there would be the openning for the more mobile Mongols to exploit

furthermore, the Mongols most often gained victory as outnumbered invaders, should their numbers be similar I cannot envision victory for Caesar

Caesar had first rate troops and artillery but the Mongols are used to fighting the odds, and I have to think they could find and exploit the weak point of their enemy

also worth mentioning is that alot of other factors played into their successes, Caesar's politicking to divide his opponents and Khan's use of fear tactics and psychological warfare

I could say more but we're trying to keep conditions of battle vague

Couldn't the Roman do the "Spikey Turtle" with most of their tropps covered with shields and a bunch of speats sticking out?

[rikstaker]

Khan.

Fast horses,ranged cavalry vs not so mobile heavy armoured roman legion,easy fight.

Rik

[Ash Housewares]

Couldn't the Roman do the "Spikey Turtle" with most of their tropps covered with shields and a bunch of speats sticking out?

testudo really doesn't give the romans much of a means of countering, and how long do they plan on maintaining it? it's very limited and while it can allow for slow paced movement towards enemy fortifications or massed bowman, with a bunch of mobile archers there's no way to win hiding, the mobility of the mongol archers negates the ability of the romans to move under fire because... where will they move to?

[zarikdon]

Genghis would slaughter a Roman Legion, whether it was led by Caesar or not. There's a reason why the Mongols overran all of China, central Asia, Russia, and Eastern Europe... their mobility (and their ability to exploit it) was entirely unprecedented. It's a good thing that Ogedei Khan coincidentally died during their invasion of Europe, or western civilization might have been set back a good hundred years. Unfortunately for Islamic civilization, Baghdad happened to be located a little more directly in the Mongols' path.

[Madness]

Age of Empires II is fun.

I vote for Khan.

[Dondrei]

if the Romans could rather easily, with pikemen, form as such that horses would not want to charge them but... Mongols had rather proficient mounted archers which would force the Romans on the offensive rather than be bled to death by arrows and then there would be the openning for the more mobile Mongols to exploit

That's true, the mobile horse archers are an advantage for Khan. The Romans didn't have pikemen, the average legionary carried a short, stout javelin. Spears were available but they were more the weapon of the Greek phalanx. Pikes weren't invented for centuries. The lightning speed and deadly potential of the horse archers would be a major problem for him.

furthermore, the Mongols most often gained victory as outnumbered invaders, should their numbers be similar I cannot envision victory for Caesar

The same is true for the Romans. Caesar fought all of Gaul and parts of Germany all the time heavily outnumbered. The legendary Roman general Gaius Marius fought half a million six foot tall Teutonic warriors with a fifth of their men, and crushed them.

Caesar had first rate troops and artillery but the Mongols are used to fighting the odds, and I have to think they could find and exploit the weak point of their enemy

Caesar was legendary for the same thing.

also worth mentioning is that alot of other factors played into their successes, Caesar's politicking to divide his opponents and Khan's use of fear tactics and psychological warfare

The Romans were extremely well trained and forces led by a powerful, charismatic general like Caesar were very hard to intimidate. I think Caesar's strategic and tactical genius would be a big factor, too. He won many a battle even against well trained, well commanded veteran Roman units, mostly because of tactical or strategic superiority.

[Dondrei]

testudo really doesn't give the romans much of a means of countering, and how long do they plan on maintaining it? it's very limited and while it can allow for slow paced movement towards enemy fortifications or massed bowman, with a bunch of mobile archers there's no way to win hiding, the mobility of the mongol archers negates the ability of the romans to move under fire because... where will they move to?

True, the tortoise formation would be a good way to sustain an archer attack but it wouldn't get Caesar ahead. Mind you, Caesar had encountered many and varied styles of armies in his career, and showed a remarkable ability to adapt to new tactics. He also used the terrain to gain an advantage masterfully - many times this won the battle for him. And the Romans had encountered both horse archers and guerrilla tactics before (they are even sometimes referred to as Fabian tactics, after the Roman general Fabius Maximus who used them to drive off Hannibal's enormous army). Mind you, I don't think they ever fought horse archers as powerful as Ghengis Khan's.

Another thing the Romans have over the Mongols is their engineering skills. A well built, manned Roman fortress would be all but impenetrable to the hordes. Mongol camps and fortifications on the other hand would be a pushover for Roman artillery, sappers and plain old ingenuity.

I think this is a pretty good match up. Each side has great strengths, and have very different styles of fighting.

[Dondrei]

you should have thrown in alexander the great too.

It's hard to say how well Alexander would stack up against Caesar and Khan as a general, but there is a serious gap in military technology from his time to Caesar's (not to mention Khan's). Roman armies by Caesar's time could basically tear apart your traditional Greek-style phalanx. And Greek/Macedonian troops and their allies aren't really the legendary forces the Romans and Mongols were. I considered Alexander, but in the end I decided that there were too many extra complications involved in including him.