Who would win... Caesar or Ghengis?

[Kaysaar]

Kay, what the hell are you talking about? Really, we don't have any specific information. I'm assuming that the armies are relatively the same as far as size is concerned. It's ridiculous to put 1000 Mongolian Archers against 10,000 Roman Archers + an Army.

The Mongolians were better shots, and they were better at shooting while moving. If you've ever shot anything, you'll know that the hardest target to hit is a moving one. Equally matched, the Mongolian Archers would have wiped out the Roman Archers with ease.

Before you make comments like that, pick up a book called The Devil's Horsemen: The Mongol Invasion of Europe by James Chambers. There are relatively accurate figures of the sizes of Ghengis Khan's armies. Unfortunartely, these figures escape me at the moment. A large portion of those soldiers would have been archers. Numbers of 5,000-10,000+ solely in archers would not have been uncommon in such a battle.

The Mongolian archers were excellent archers, but accuracy would have been largely a moot point in a battle against the Romans anyway. Who the hell cares if you can hit one soldier in a 1000. When fighting a mass of soldiers, you want to shoot massed volleys of arrows. Historians figure that trained archers could fire between 7-10 decently aimed shots in a minute. It's much better if you have your archers firing at similar intervals because you can drop 1000s of arrows on your opponents quickly, rather than screwing around on a chance shot that you may hit an opening in their armor.

And yes, I have dabbled in both archery and firearms, and whatever you get from knowledge in short range archerytarget shooting is crap when putting it into a medieval military context. If your opponent got to within 30 yrds of your archers, you had failed, and most of them were going to die.

In a forest, the Mongolians would have had a huge advantage over the Roman Army. Even without their horses, their lighter equipment would have made it much easier to go through the woods. They could have easily used hit and run tactics with their archers on foot to eliminate the Roman Army, which would lose its defensive advantage because it wouldn't be able to maintain formation. Unless the Mongolians were backed into a corner with huge cliffs on either side, they would have a clear advantage if equally matched. Their mobility was greater than that of the Roman Army- on horseback and on foot. Their long range capability was better than that of the Roman Army- on horseback and foot. And probably most important of all, their command and control ability was better. The Roman Army relied heavily on a formation to protect its flanks, where the Mongols did not. The Mongols could have fought effectively spread out without the command of a leader, and their tactics made them well suited to group and individual attacks.

This is a difficult call to make because we know very little about Mongol foot combat because their entire military machine revolved around thier superior horsemenship. When you remove the horses, they need to completely rethink their strategy because all of a sudden those soldiers are going up against the best infantry of it's time, without their chief advantages of superior archery (arhcery in forests doesn't work all that well) and horses. Yeah, the Roman's 13th legion did get massacred in the Tuteberg (sp) forest, but the German tribes that defeated them were used to forest fighting, and were led by Germanicus, a ex-Roman leader.

As for the foot mobility issues - people often see the medieval knight in a similar fashion. But think about it, when you spend a good portion of your time wearing the armor and carrying the shield, your body adapts. Armor becomes a second skin, and your shield becomes an extension of your arm. From our 21st century experience with armor we see it as a burden, but after wearing it everyday, all day, you would stop noticing.

[Module88]

The Mongolian archers were excellent archers, but accuracy would have been largely a moot point in a battle against the Romans anyway. Who the hell cares if you can hit one soldier in a 1000. When fighting a mass of soldiers, you want to shoot massed volleys of arrows. Historians figure that trained archers could fire between 7-10 decently aimed shots in a minute. It's much better if you have your archers firing at similar intervals because you can drop 1000s of arrows on your opponents quickly, rather than screwing around on a chance shot that you may hit an opening in their armor.

You don't have to shoot between the armor. Mongol bows were powerful enough to pierce plate. Also, with Mongol mobility, it would have been easy to outmanuever the archers. Why is accuracy important? Because the Mongols are on horseback. They can see the volley and just move out of the way with their superior speed.

And let's ASSUME that they can't. Uh, split up? Now you're 10,000 inaccurate archers are shooting at 5000 well trained mobile archers moving in different directions. With the field so large, your inaccurate archers, trying to shoot 360 degrees, will have a very small chance of hitting the Mongol archers. Even better, there's the distance, and not only are you shooting 360 degrees with your archers, they have to shoot different distances and somehow compensate for possible evasive actions taken by the Mongol archers on horseback.

And yes, I have dabbled in both archery and firearms, and whatever you get from knowledge in short range archerytarget shooting is crap when putting it into a medieval military context. If your opponent got to within 30 yrds of your archers, you had failed, and most of them were going to die.

It's not crap. Hitting a moving target at long range is MUCH harder than hitting a target standing still. Hell, I would bet, most people using guns would NOT be able to hit a target moving 9 mph, in their choice of position, at 100 yards with a few shots. With a GUN. And when you're put in the circumstances I put above, things become considerably more difficult.

[Kaysaar]

Lots of relevant points

Hrm... I have a sneaking suspicion that we're both running in opposite directions. I read your initial point that the Mongols would have bothered targeting individual, and ran from there by talking about why they'd use volleys instead. I was also running with the idea of archers vs. normal army, rather than continuing with archers vs. archers. Based on what I've read from such battles, i.e. Crecy in 1346, range seems to be the biggest factor.

Mongols did use the volleys that I've been talking about, with greater success than other armies because they did have that greater mobility. But history has shown that the volley works.

I think we're both making good points, but we're interpreting each other's arguments out of context. But I think that we may want to get closer to topic.

And yeah, hitting things at range is harder than hitting close things. But by the time that your enemy has got that close, they are going to close in so fast that your archers would be left high and dry. Once you get too close to the archers, they're largely out of luck.

But as I said in my first post, I think the Mongols would have defeated the Romans if they had the advantage of picking the time and place. But there are so many little factors that could tip the scales for either army. If it were a clear open field, or a fortified position, I'd give it to the Mongols, due to experience with sieges, and superior mobility and archery. Sloped terrain, ill weather or other outside factor would have tipped the scale back to the Romans.

i like ur thinking man we should hook up and talk about age of empires 3 :lol: also if the longbows were on a cliff they would destroy the soldiers so u gotta count in the factors

Take a look at the Battle of Agincourt. The French (who had a 3-1 advantage in numbers) were slaughtered by the thousands due to the effectiveness of the English longbowmen.

[Module88]

Hrm... I have a sneaking suspicion that we're both running in opposite directions. I read your initial point that the Mongols would have bothered targeting individual, and ran from there by talking about why they'd use volleys instead. I was also running with the idea of archers vs. normal army, rather than continuing with archers vs. archers. Based on what I've read from such battles, i.e. Crecy in 1346, range seems to be the biggest factor.

Mongols did use the volleys that I've been talking about, with greater success than other armies because they did have that greater mobility. But history has shown that the volley works.

I think we're both making good points, but we're interpreting each other's arguments out of context. But I think that we may want to get closer to topic.

But as I said in my first post, I think the Mongols would have defeated the Romans if they had the advantage of picking the time and place. But there are so many little factors that could tip the scales for either army. If it were a clear open field, or a fortified position, I'd give it to the Mongols, due to experience with sieges, and superior mobility and archery. Sloped terrain, ill weather or other outside factor would have tipped the scale back to the Romans.

The Mongols did use volleys- but they were accurate and well-aimed. It wasn't just send the arrow in the general direction of the enemy.

Even with sloped terrain, how can you say the Romans win? Are the Romans or Mongols at the top? What are the commanders doing? That is up to the individual commander. If the Romans were at the top, the Mongols would be at a disadvantage, but they could easily just retreat to find a better battlefield. But even so, the Mongols had superior mobility on horseback and would have been able to flank the less mobile Roman Army (still in formation). Whichever way you put it, the Mongols were more mobile, and they had better archers. Even if they had a disadvantage in position, they could have worked around it because of their superior speed and the inability of the Roman Army to quickly shift flanks and move to engage targets farther out. Essentially, the Roman Army would have to move down the hill and lose its defensive advantage if it wanted to engage the Mongol Army. And once on that flat plain, the Mongols would have a huge advantage.

If they stayed on the hill with a defensive advantage, the Army would be useless, and it would be an archer to archer battle, which the Mongols would likely win. If the Mongols were on top, they would still be able to go on flat ground easily enough, and they would have a clear advantage against an advancing Roman Army.

In both cases, the Mongols can gain the advantage, where the less mobile Roman Army is stuck to a certain plan. Also note that the Roman soldier was not trained to be individualistic. In a sense, he was similar to the British in the Revolutionary War, where if an officer were killed, disarray would lead to the destruction of the Army. In the case of the Mongols, they effectively worked individually and as a group, and this coupled with their speed would ultimately give them the advantage if they were equally matched.

Edit

Take a look at the Battle of Agincourt. The French (who had a 3-1 advantage in numbers) were slaughtered by the thousands due to the effectiveness of the English longbowmen.

That situation doesn't even come close to comparing. The French don't have the high mobility of the Mongols. Essentially, that would be a Roman Army fighting a Roman Army. The Mongols have superior individual and group tactics (they didn't bunch up and attack in a group as the French did) and their archers not ONLY were better shots, but had better mobility. Where the French Army advanced into thousands arrows, the Mongol Army would have split up with their superior mobility, making large volleys ineffective simply because they couldn't shoot that many arrows in every direction. That situation is completely uncomparable to the situation we are comparing now.

[Kaysaar]

The Mongols did use volleys- but they were accurate and well-aimed. It wasn't just send the arrow in the general direction of the enemy.

I know... I just said that

Even with sloped terrain, how can you say the Romans win? Are the Romans or Mongols at the top? What are the commanders doing? That is up to the individual commander. If the Romans were at the top, the Mongols would be at a disadvantage, but they could easily just retreat to find a better battlefield. But even so, the Mongols had superior mobility on horseback and would have been able to flank the less mobile Roman Army (still in formation).

Romans at the top. And I didn't say they'd win, I said that the scales would tip to their advantage. Assaulting up a hill is one of the hardest things for any commander. Also, You can't always abandon that battlefield. Sometimes it is necessary to make such an assault.

Whichever way you put it, the Mongols were more mobile, and they had better archers. Even if they had a disadvantage in position, they could have worked around it because of their superior speed and the inability of the Roman Army to quickly shift flanks and move to engage targets farther out. Essentially, the Roman Army would have to move down the hill and lose its defensive advantage if it wanted to engage the Mongol Army. And once on that flat plain, the Mongols would have a huge advantage.

Armies that function in a block setting like the Romans, Alexander's Army, and pike squares are trained to deal with flanks, because they do tend to be susceptible to such an attack. With a block formation, it's easy to quickly change which side of the formation is the front, and you can deal with the flank.

If they stayed on the hill with a defensive advantage, the Army would be useless, and it would be an archer to archer battle, which the Mongols would likely win. If the Mongols were on top, they would still be able to go on flat ground easily enough, and they would have a clear advantage against an advancing Roman Army.

Shooting downhill is infinitely easier than shooting uphill.

In both cases, the Mongols can gain the advantage, where the less mobile Roman Army is stuck to a certain plan. Also note that the Roman soldier was not trained to be individualistic. In a sense, he was similar to the British in the Revolutionary War, where if an officer were killed, disarray would lead to the destruction of the Army. In the case of the Mongols, they effectively worked individually and as a group, and this coupled with their speed would ultimately give them the advantage if they were equally matched.

The Romans had a well organised "bug out" sort of situtation. When it was time to retreat, there were two tiers of warriors that would cover the retreat of the main army. Either way, the Roman soldiers knew what they had to do. Also, the Romans used a series of communication techniques (horns) that allowed them to communicate mass commands accross the battlefield, so no unit would be completely cut off.

That situation doesn't even come close to comparing. The French don't have the high mobility of the Mongols. Essentially, that would be a Roman Army fighting a Roman Army. The Mongols have superior individual and group tactics (they didn't bunch up and attack in a group as the French did) and their archers not ONLY were better shots, but had better mobility. Where the French Army advanced into thousands arrows, the Mongol Army would have split up with their superior mobility, making large volleys ineffective simply because they couldn't shoot that many arrows in every direction. That situation is completely uncomparable to the situation we are comparing now.

I know, I was referring to grimreaperofsouls' comment about shooting from a position where the archers are largely out of reach of the enemy. This had nothing to do with Mongols nor Romans

(Also the mongols would have had a similar problem as the French did, advancing up the hill in the mud. Not very mobile situations.)

[Module88]

Romans at the top. And I didn't say they'd win, I said that the scales would tip to their advantage. Assaulting up a hill is one of the hardest things for any commander. Also, You can't always abandon that battlefield. Sometimes it is necessary to make such an assault.

If they are on the hill, retreat will be an option. Also, it doesn't offer them an advantage if you realize that the Mongol's mobility could take that advantage right away. The Mongol's might not even have to assault the hill, and commanders don't do it unless they have to.

Armies that function in a block setting like the Romans, Alexander's Army, and pike squares are trained to deal with flanks, because they do tend to be susceptible to such an attack. With a block formation, it's easy to quickly change which side of the formation is the front, and you can deal with the flank.

Of course it is, but you can't effectively move to adapt to the enemy.

Shooting downhill is infinitely easier than shooting uphill.

Actually, that's not true. Shooting downhill forces you to aim more linearly to hit a close opponent. If the Mongols closed in, the archers would either have to aim very high to get the arrows in close (and risk hitting the Roman Troops), or they would have to aim downward and risk hitting the Roman Troops protecting them in the back. Also, when you're shooting, you do the same thing. Shooting uphill, your arrows won't go as far, but it's just as easy to shoot uphill as it is downhill. But again, it puts the Roman Archers in a very difficult position.

The Romans had a well organised "bug out" sort of situtation. When it was time to retreat, there were two tiers of warriors that would cover the retreat of the main army. Either way, the Roman soldiers knew what they had to do. Also, the Romans used a series of communication techniques (horns) that allowed them to communicate mass commands accross the battlefield, so no unit would be completely cut off.

The Roman Armies were decimated by Barbarian Tribes because they lost discipline in the face of defeat.

(Also the mongols would have had a similar problem as the French did, advancing up the hill in the mud. Not very mobile situations.)

The Mongols were superior tacticians compared to the French. They wouldn't assault uphill. They'd use their superior archers (again, because the Romans are in a difficult position) to hit the enemy while several troops would flank the hill on the opposite side. Their horses made this faster and easier and the Romans would have to continually shift formations to counter the attack. And if they can easily do so, then all the Mongols had to do was wait and starve them out.

[Dondrei]

The Mongols used sophisticated battle tactics that exploited their mobility. Caesar's army would have NEVER been able to catch them, so the Mongols would have been hard to beat.

That's true and it sure would've given the Romans nightmares, but I'm not so sure Caesar couldn't find a way around it. He's an immensely innovative and adaptive commander and he sometimes used astonishing tactics that no-one else would have thought of. His double circumvallation of Alesia is just astounding.

The Mongols certainly have some fearsome weapons and tactics, but at least half of war is strategy and logistics. I think Caesar unmistakably holds the upper hand here. Remember we're talking about a sustained campaign here rather than a single battle.

This is a difficult call to make because we know very little about Mongol foot combat because their entire military machine revolved around thier superior horsemenship. When you remove the horses, they need to completely rethink their strategy because all of a sudden those soldiers are going up against the best infantry of it's time, without their chief advantages of superior archery (arhcery in forests doesn't work all that well) and horses. Yeah, the Roman's 13th legion did get massacred in the Tuteberg (sp) forest, but the German tribes that defeated them were used to forest fighting, and were led by Germanicus, a ex-Roman leader.

As for the foot mobility issues - people often see the medieval knight in a similar fashion. But think about it, when you spend a good portion of your time wearing the armor and carrying the shield, your body adapts. Armor becomes a second skin, and your shield becomes an extension of your arm. From our 21st century experience with armor we see it as a burden, but after wearing it everyday, all day, you would stop noticing.

I agree. I think if it comes to foot vs. foot Caesar's definitely got Khan by the throat. Luring Ghengis into forest or other rough terrain would be an excellent tactic for Caesar.

The Roman foot soldiers, particularly those led by Caesar, were legendary for their mobility. That armour is not as heavy as the sort favoured by medieval Europe, and the men have been wearing it since adolescence. And Varus wasn't a hundredth the general Caesar was.

The Roman Armies were decimated by Barbarian Tribes because they lost discipline in the face of defeat.

Depends who their leader was. Rome suffered many ignominious defeats due to military incompetence (generals tended to be put into place because of nepotism rather than talent), but when led by greats like Marius, Sulla, Sertorius or Caesar their discipline was legendary. Caesar's troops in Gaul were never routed while he was in command. His charisma, genius and the fact that he never truly lost a battle made his men feel invincible. And Roman discipline and training are second to none (although perhaps on par with Khan's).

[piff]

NOTE: I stopped at post 40.

Quite frankly, I'd rather be shot by a pistol than hit by a Mongol arrow. The advantage a gun has over a bow (generally) is accuracy. With the Mongol bows and pretty much from then on out, and arrow could prove to be just as lethal as a bullet. A bullet, though, tends to leave a clean wound, whereas a perfectly placed arrow can rip your head off. (oh, another advantage of guns: more power over long distances, plus probably at least one more).

The problem the Romans would have is when you're in a huge company with a shield wall, the Mongols don't have to worry too much about accuracy. Furthermore, their bows could break Roman shields after only a couple of well-placed shots, and with volleys of arrows, a couple of well-placed shots would not bee too hard to land.

Even if the Romans found a way to counteract the archers, horses have a certain advantage over men: speed. One of Genghis' tactics was to run, fire, run, fire, or in the case of non-archers, run, tire out the opponent or force them to disorganize, strike, then repeat. Caesar would have to put on quite a show to beat the horde. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'd bet on the Great Khan for this one.

[Echod16]

i'll have to vote for Kahn

next in line would be Napoleon

[Dondrei]

That's true, Caesar definitely has his work cut out for him. But everyone's concentrating only on tactics. Don't forget strategy. This is a whole campaign, so we have to think about things like lines of supply, assets that need protecting and so on.

And there's the whole issue of trying to force the battle onto favourable ground. Caesar's versatile army (with auxiliaries) can fight pretty well on almost any terrain, and can use the lay of the land to their advantage. Khan on the other hand has to stick to a certain kind of ground to maintain his advantage.

And don't forget subterfuge. Caesar was adept at setting traps for his enemies. If Khan ever gets snared, Caesar has a hell of an advantage.