Who would win... Caesar or Ghengis?

[Kaysaar]

I don't know about that. Caesar encountered many Greek and Macedonian troops when fighting in Macedonia, Asia Minor and Egypt, and he crushed them like bugs. He faced worse from Gauls. By Caesar's time the phalanx's day was well and truly over. The Roman legion was superior in almost every respect.

A phalanx invincible? Quite an exaggeration. And Caesar used his relatively small numbers of German cavalry to devastating effect all through his battles in Gaul. It may have been the decisive factor in a number of great battles. Those German cavalry were easily the equal of anything Alexander had, particularly with Caesar in command.

The Greek Phalanxes that Caesar would have encountered were nothing compared to Alexander's phalanxes. During Alexander's conquests, the Macedonians carried spears around 18' long. Coupled with heavy bronze armor and shields, this would have been a seriously difficult phalanx to defeat.

Also, Alexander was easily one of the greatest military minds in history. A man who defeated the Persian empire while seriously outnumbered, and held an army of 60,000 Macedonians and mercenaries together 1000's of miles from their home. He managed to march an army from Greece to India, without losing. Don't forget that Caesar cried at the feet of Alexander's statue because he felt he couldn't compare to his greatness.

[lCE]

I doubt that the legions would have stood a chance vs Mongol cavalry archer tactic, they were just too slow for that.
(and just think, a few centuries later, similar horde of Huns have absolutely devastated everything Rome had to offer).

[bladesyz]

Just thought of something, how many legendary battles are known? I mean 2 superb generals + their highly disciplined armies fighting? Most of the time its 1 good general vs 1 poor or ok general. Take Hannibal vs the romans, Attila vs the Romans, Caeser vs the Gauls, Alexander vs the Persians, Khan vs the Chinese. None of these fought another superb general they only fought at best above average commanders that were not innovative, went by their training and were thus slaughtered. The only case of 2 generals facing off that were both excellent would be Rommel vs Patton in WW2.

That's only due to the tendency of history to remember only the victors, and since there can only be one victor...

Off the top of my head, I can name:

- Yue Fei vs that Jin general whose name i can't ever pronounce
- Zhu Ge Liang vs Zhou Yu (Romance of Three Kingdoms)
- Mao Ze Dong vs Jiang Jie Shi (communist vs nationalists)
- Peng De Huai vs MacArthur (Korean War)

The Impaler sure wasn't the sort of guy you'd take home to meet your mother, but his military career is a little uninspiring. Check it out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_Tepes if you're interested.

Considering that he single-handedly (figure of speech) defended Romania from the Turkish invasion, I would say his military career is pretty good for his time.

Remember that Eastern Europe bore the brunt of the battles against Turkish and other eastern forces, while Western Europe were occupied fighting their own little skirmishes over fiefdoms the size of small villages.

Western Europe during the medieval era is, quite simply put, unused to large-scale battles. The biggest wars often involved only thousands of troops, at most tens of thousands. Such numbers are considered small in eastern standards. Poland, for example, raised an army of 80 thousand to defend against the 20 thousand mongol invaders (and were promptly slaughtered).

[Module88]

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.

He doesn't. The Mongols moved their "cities" with them whereever they went. And their horses were undeniably a faster method of supply than what the Romans had.

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.

Mongols were trained from birth, literally. Also, Ghengis would have an advantage in the forest. Regardless of how light Roman gear was, Mongol gear was lighter, and that's a fact. The Romans also relied heavily on formations to protect their flanks. As I said before, they would be unable to maintain this in a forest, and they would lose a significant defensive advantage against the faster and more accurate Mongol Archers.

And Roman discipline and training are second to none (although perhaps on par with Khan's).

No society that comes to my head could have been trained better than that of Ancient Sparta. Period.

Ghengis > Caeser, Ghengis was a masterful tactician, and had VERY well disciplined and hardened troops. They could fight independently where the romans were disciplined to fight in formation, the Mongols would break the formations and slaughter the Romans. Mongols were not only horsesoldiers as most of the posts imply, they did use infantry which were generally slaves as fodder, when Romans would engage said infantry the horsearchers could wreak havoc on them. Mongols did not just use arrows on horseback they also engaged in melee combat.

This is very true. But for the last part, their main advantage lay in their mobility, so generally, they used horses and guerilla tactics to win even though they were ridiculously outnumbered.

[{KOW}Spazed]

If Caesar did a 'bull and horns' attack he could get behind the horses before they could turn around and get a good number of them.

As for the small attacks the Mongols used, a 3 man ballista with chained balls(forgot their real name, two weights with a length of chain between them) could easily take out horses and be reloaded fast enough to be effective. Shot would be the main factor. Rome just never seemed to use those like I would have liked, hard to keep in formation and not double up on targets.


Caesar could have laid 'siege' the Horde and starved them out, if they stayed in one area too long their horses would starve. Or he could fight them in a cold climate where they would tire quickly and slip on the hard ground.

I also see the pilum doing more damage than most of you. A pointy thing of bending metal stuck in a horses body with a big wooden handle to really make it move would take a horse down easy, at least make it worthless in battle.

[Steve_Kow]

Asian fighting styles are the best.

[Module88]

If Caesar did a 'bull and horns' attack he could get behind the horses before they could turn around and get a good number of them.

As for the small attacks the Mongols used, a 3 man ballista with chained balls(forgot their real name, two weights with a length of chain between them) could easily take out horses and be reloaded fast enough to be effective. Shot would be the main factor. Rome just never seemed to use those like I would have liked, hard to keep in formation and not double up on targets.

Ballistas could have been easily dodged by the Mongols on horseback. The small squads they operated in would have made any form of artillery ridiculously ineffective and inefficient.

Caesar could have laid 'siege' the Horde and starved them out, if they stayed in one area too long their horses would starve. Or he could fight them in a cold climate where they would tire quickly and slip on the hard ground.

I also see the pilum doing more damage than most of you. A pointy thing of bending metal stuck in a horses body with a big wooden handle to really make it move would take a horse down easy, at least make it worthless in battle.

It's very hard to lay siege to an enemy that doesn't stay in the same spot. Also, the Mongols also could have taken food supplies from captured cities. Keep in mind any cold climate would have also adversely affected Caesar's army as well, more so than the Mongols because the Mongols grew up in such climates and were well suited to such combat. Also, I doubt any person, even today, could throw a pilum 175 yards, which was about the range Mongol Archers typically engaged at. Also keep in mind that they are moving at relatively high speeds, and I think you'd find it hard to hit a moving target at that distance with a pilum.

[{KOW}Spazed]

A ballista can shoot at over 250 miles an hour, that's pretty damn fast compared to any living target. If the Romans made a shield wall they could make the archers come closer and basically rip the horses legs off with ballista shot.


As for the second part, are we talking a single battle or an all out war? I thought it was one massive battle, no taking over other places etc.


If it's an all out war why doesn't Rome send part of its massive army to start eating away at the Mongol homeland? That would slow resources and if they were good enough stop the chain of command. The Mongols would have a harder time doing this against walled cities.


Cold tundra is not the same as cold mountain range, moisture plays a big role in breathing and grip.

[bladesyz]

A ballista can shoot at over 250 miles an hour, that's pretty damn fast compared to any living target. If the Romans made a shield wall they could make the archers come closer and basically rip the horses legs off with ballista shot.

Except that aiming it and turning it around takes forever.


On the subject of Roman vs Mongol mobility, the Mongols have the Romans beat by miles. Remember that the Legionnaires were legendary for their mobility... for an infantry, and for their time, some 800 years before Genghis Khan.

The Mongols, however, had a mobility that was UNMATCHED by any army in history until the advent of mobile warfare, meaning tanks, and armored personelle carriers.

[Module88]

A ballista can shoot at over 250 miles an hour, that's pretty damn fast compared to any living target. If the Romans made a shield wall they could make the archers come closer and basically rip the horses legs off with ballista shot.

That's the inital speed, not the final speed. Still, that IS fast, but they wouldn't be able to effectively aim and fire and expect to hit the target when it is moving at such high speeds. The Mongols aren't going in straight lines and they certainly don't want to get in the path of your ballista. And moving that thing is a pain in the ***.

As for the second part, are we talking a single battle or an all out war? I thought it was one massive battle, no taking over other places etc.

Keeps changing.

If it's an all out war why doesn't Rome send part of its massive army to start eating away at the Mongol homeland? That would slow resources and if they were good enough stop the chain of command. The Mongols would have a harder time doing this against walled cities.

Because they'd have ridiculously thin supply lines, the Mongols constantly move (so it's hard to find them, as they have no real cities), and Roman troops would be at a disadvantage positionally and tactically, as I'm sure the Mongols knew their land better than Roman land. The Mongols were much more effective- their success did not depend on a CoC like the Romans did. If a leader was killed, they would improvise their strategy and still work together effectively, which is what made them so dangerous.

Cold tundra is not the same as cold mountain range, moisture plays a big role in breathing and grip.

They had just about all of Asia, minus China. I'm sure there's plenty of tundra there, and I'm pretty sure they were used to it.