• 52 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Jayfournines (4024 posts) - - Show Bio

Battle takes place in a grassy valley (to make it neutral ground). Who takes the title of the best conqueror in history?

Round 1: Their entire armies do battle.

Round 2: Alex and Genghis Hand to hand

#2 Posted by Super_SoldierXII (6356 posts) - - Show Bio

Round 1 : Definitely Alexader's army.

Round 2 : Definitely Genghis Khan.

#3 Edited by Picard (999 posts) - - Show Bio

Alexander. Read Arthur's C. Clarke novelTime's Eyeto find out why. :)

#4 Posted by Sylvain (1640 posts) - - Show Bio

Alexander

#5 Posted by Jayfournines (4024 posts) - - Show Bio

@Picard said:

Alexander. Read Arthur's C. Clarke novelTime's Eyeto find out why. :)

won't read it. Tell me why?

#6 Edited by TotalBalance (742 posts) - - Show Bio

Round 1: Alexanders army is very poorly suited for facing an opponent whose primary force is composed of fast moving horse archers. While Alexander also had a good cavalry force they simply would not be able to compete with the Mongols. I would see Alexanders army being whittled away under a hail of arrows. Genghis Khans iron age weapons are simply too far ahead of Alexanders bronze age armor for his men to survive a constant bombardment of arrows. Not to mention Mongol bows would be far and away superior to anything the Greeks would possess.

Round 2: I would give Alexander the win in hand to hand given that from what information I have seen, he was likely stronger and had more personal combat training. But I do not have enough information to give a definite answer.

#7 Posted by OmgOmgWtfWtf (7031 posts) - - Show Bio

@TotalBalance: I agree with your analysis for round 1. Very good break down on your part. For Round 2, I would personally say that Genghis Khan would win. Since Alexander is trained in Macedonian fighting styles, it greatly favors formation over individual fighting style. Also, Alexander's weapons of choice which would be a spear, medium sized Greek sword, and shield, which would hinder him in individual battles. The Greeks relied heavily on group formations to overcome enemies, rather than individual skill. Mobility, probably the largest factor attributed to Mongol success, would also prove effective in this scenario. From what I read, Mongolians tended to not wear armor, they wore fur and animal leather to protect them, with silk undergarment, but did not wear metal armor because it slowed them down. While the Greeks didn't wear full body armor, they were known to wear heavy breast plates and carried heavy shield large enough to cover them shoulder to shoulder. While this is useful in formation, it might prove to quite a hindrance in this scenario. Also his sword of choice was effective on horse back, less so on foot, and favored broad slashing strokes. Mongolians carried scimitars for horseback fighting, but also carried an ax (for both combat and survival purposes), which would greatly help in this battle. In battle situations axes are better than swords (just look at the visigoths and franks), due to its ability to penetrate shield and armor more effectively, mostly due to the momentum gained swinging down an ax. Mongols also carry leather shields which would prove just as effective as a metal one when facing a sword, but proving to be much lighter. So basically my two cents is that mobility in this situation would prove to be a better asset than the 'heavy' equipment of the Greeks. Not to mention, the Mongolians have superior metals from which their weapons are constructed.

#8 Posted by Vortex13 (12250 posts) - - Show Bio

@OmgOmgWtfWtf: @TotalBalance: Very well put to the both of you. I now have nothing to add after reading both of your post lol.

#9 Posted by XImpossibruX (5174 posts) - - Show Bio

Alexander both.

Alexander bred his army to fight, Khan had an army that raped and pillaged with overwhelming numbers, although Khan has a superior army and great tactics which conquered alot.

Khan

If they were ever to meet, Alexander's army is much better equipped, better trained, assuming equal forces on either side, i go with Alexander for both.

#10 Edited by TotalBalance (742 posts) - - Show Bio

@XImpossibruX said:

Alexander both.

Alexander bred his army to fight, Khan had an army that raped and pillaged with overwhelming numbers, although Khan has a superior army and great tactics which conquered alot.

Khan

If they were ever to meet, Alexander's army is much better equipped, better trained, assuming equal forces on either side, i go with Alexander for both.

I am sorry, but this is just completely wrong. Mongol archers were absolutely renowned for their skill with a bow. Not to mention the Mongol bow is simply far and away superior to any bow that the Greeks had access to. Iron tipped arrows just make it all the worse as the Greeks bronze armor would be severely outdated and would not provide very good protection. When you consider about 6 of every 10 Mongol warriors was a horse bowman you can appreciate the overwhelming cavalry advantage they would have on Alexander. Mongol bowman would be armored in leathers and silk that while light was meant mainly for stopping arrows not swords as infantry literally could not touch them, period. The lighter armor would also allow them to outrun the Greeks cavalry who would be numerically and technologically inferior. Considering that Alexanders armies were almost always comprised of at most 25% cavalry there is simply no way for him to match the Mongols numerically superior horde of highly trained horseman. Once Alexanders cavalry had been slaughtered the infantry would just be whittled away under a hail of arrows. Their is no shame in Alexander losing to someone who has 1500 years worth of technology over him.

#11 Posted by OmgOmgWtfWtf (7031 posts) - - Show Bio

@XImpossibruX: Your post is very misinformed. The Mongolians fought armies larger than theirs for the most part. Also how would Alexander's army deal with Khan's screamer arrows or Mongolian longbow? Their infantry would not be mobile enough to challenge Khan's horseback army. Not to mention Alexander's Calvary would not be able to reach them. Mongolian wild horses are some of the fastest in the world, and the Mongolian troops carry light gear in order to be as quick as possible. Mongolians can also shoot while on horseback very accurately. They will just circle around the Greek army until they died. Long range superiority trumps the formations of the Greeks and melee nature of their army. Their phalanx would prove to be useless versus armor piercing arrows and the deceptive nature of Khan's army. They could easily used a feigned retreat method in order to split up Alexander's army and use their superior mobility to pick them off slowly. They faced against the Song Dynasty, successors of the Tang Dynasty, considered to be one of the strongest Chinese empires ever to exist. Creating an empire to rival the Han Dynasty, which was widely considered to be one of the greatest dynasties as well. They had armor, weapons, and equipment far more sophisticated than Alexander's and still managed to lose. Alexander is not better trained, more well equipped, or even more sophisticated. The Mongolians wielded superior technology and superior weaponry. They were so feared that the Europeans themselves payed tribute in order not to be destroyed. They were more than pillagers and rapists. They for the most part offered cities the chance to either surrender or be destroyed, and for the most part the cities chose to give up. While I don't want to sound conceited, I am a history major, specializing in Chinese history and being Chinese myself, I can say for certain that Alexander the Great would not stand the slightest chance of winning. His army is the bread and butter from which the Mongolian easily conquer.

#12 Posted by Sethlol (1296 posts) - - Show Bio

Genghis Khan both rounds.

#13 Posted by TotalBalance (742 posts) - - Show Bio

@OmgOmgWtfWtf: Haha, it appears this time I am quicker off the draw.

And earlier in the Thread when I said Alexander wins hand-to-hand I thought the OP was asking who would win in a fists only fight between the two, not with weapons. As far as I know Alexander was likely physically superior and spent more time then Khan training in unarmed personal combat, but I could be wrong.

#14 Posted by blackkitty (327 posts) - - Show Bio

One thing Alexander has going for him is discipline. Khan has a large army, but it's all driven by mutual goals. When things go sour, they scatter. I actually give round 1 to Alexander if he has time to prepare for the battle. The Greeks were great engineers, he could counter horse back if he can pick the battle ground environment. Open field, then yes, go with Khan. If Alexander's men can inflict heavy casualties or make it appear this fight not worth the spoils though, Khan's men will lose the will to fight, Alexander's won't. Yes, The Visagoth's also had the benefit of a leader who was trained by the Romans in Roman fighting, so they knew where and how to attack them. Khan has no benefit of such training. I go with Alexander in hand to hand.

#15 Edited by TotalBalance (742 posts) - - Show Bio

@blackkitty said:

One thing Alexander has going for him is discipline. Khan has a large army, but it's all driven by mutual goals. When things go sour, they scatter. I actually give round 1 to Alexander if he has time to prepare for the battle. The Greeks were great engineers, he could counter horse back if he can pick the battle ground environment. Open field, then yes, go with Khan. If Alexander's men can inflict heavy casualties or make it appear this fight not worth the spoils though, Khan's men will lose the will to fight, Alexander's won't. Yes, The Visagoth's also had the benefit of a leader who was trained by the Romans in Roman fighting, so they knew where and how to attack them. Khan has no benefit of such training. I go with Alexander in hand to hand.

The Mongol Empires only real defeats came from enemies who adopted the same strategy as them. For example the Mamluk`s defeated the Mongols at the battle of Ain Jalut by employing similar hit and run cavalry based tactics. Even with the home field advantage and equal numbers the Mamluk`s still took enormous loses. The reason the Mongol military was so successful is because it was simply the best setup of its day. And the fight for the spoils thing is not completely correct, the Mongols were a warrior culture who enjoyed combat and sought victory for the sake of victory. They would even fight enemies who had previously bested them just for the sake of proving that they were the best and avenging their loss.

#16 Posted by OmgOmgWtfWtf (7031 posts) - - Show Bio

@TotalBalance: That changes a lot of things lol. I can't say who wins for certain. Grecian h2h usually involves training in wrestling and boxing, which could prove very useful in this. I have absolutely not knowledge of what Khan's training in the fist fighting department is.

@blackkitty: You have it very wrong. Khan gained the loyalty of all the tribes in Mongolia by beating them. They would not scatter when they are losing, that would be shameful, and be instant death for their clan, both literally and politically speaking. These are people motivated by honor and glory, they would not run in the face of death, since they for the most part of their career faced larger armies. The Mongolians are very disciplined fighters, Genghis Khan was a military genius when it came to planning and strategy. While he left most of the individual commands to his generals who each controlled a section of his army, he gathered many European and Chinese engineers to build him the latest weaponry. Khan also went to the greatest minds in Europe and Asia to teach him in both philosophy and the art of war. I wouldn't be surprised if ancient Grecian fighting styles came up, since Alexander predated Genghis Khan by a bit. Not to mention, technology and strategy has changed significantly over the course of several hundred years. Mongolian shortbows and longbows are notorious for being able to reach over long distances and penetrate thick armor. Also Khan has a lot of experience fighting trained armies, just look at the Chinese and Europeans. He conquered the armies of the Song Dynasty, who were well known for their metal work, particularly their iron work, which Khan adopted into his arrowheads, making them even more effective. Khan can demoralize with screamer arrows, which would maim, instead of kill, leaving anguished cries to be heard on the battle field. Genghis Khan was not some barbarian, he was a genius. He regularly employed psychological warfare into his battles and has more than enough experience fighting armies in formation. Alexander's armies lack of mobility would be the death of them.

#17 Posted by Jayfournines (4024 posts) - - Show Bio

@OmgOmgWtfWtf: my friend, you have earned yourself a follower

#18 Posted by SupremeHyperion (1527 posts) - - Show Bio

Khan would win, mostly because of the arrogance and over confidence Alexander would have seeing Khan's army Khan would beat Alexander in H2H, I feel Alexander would fight the techniques he had learned while Khan would be more likely to be able to adapt and I'm sure he wouldn't be affraid to break every rule.

#19 Posted by OmgOmgWtfWtf (7031 posts) - - Show Bio

@Jayfournines: you're so kind :D

#20 Posted by Nefarious (20300 posts) - - Show Bio

Alex.

#21 Posted by evilvegeta74 (4530 posts) - - Show Bio

Khan !

#22 Posted by nerdork (4038 posts) - - Show Bio

@OmgOmgWtfWtf said:

@TotalBalance: I agree with your analysis for round 1. Very good break down on your part. For Round 2, I would personally say that Genghis Khan would win. Since Alexander is trained in Macedonian fighting styles, it greatly favors formation over individual fighting style. Also, Alexander's weapons of choice which would be a spear, medium sized Greek sword, and shield, which would hinder him in individual battles. The Greeks relied heavily on group formations to overcome enemies, rather than individual skill. Mobility, probably the largest factor attributed to Mongol success, would also prove effective in this scenario. From what I read, Mongolians tended to not wear armor, they wore fur and animal leather to protect them, with silk undergarment, but did not wear metal armor because it slowed them down. While the Greeks didn't wear full body armor, they were known to wear heavy breast plates and carried heavy shield large enough to cover them shoulder to shoulder. While this is useful in formation, it might prove to quite a hindrance in this scenario. Also his sword of choice was effective on horse back, less so on foot, and favored broad slashing strokes. Mongolians carried scimitars for horseback fighting, but also carried an ax (for both combat and survival purposes), which would greatly help in this battle. In battle situations axes are better than swords (just look at the visigoths and franks), due to its ability to penetrate shield and armor more effectively, mostly due to the momentum gained swinging down an ax. Mongols also carry leather shields which would prove just as effective as a metal one when facing a sword, but proving to be much lighter. So basically my two cents is that mobility in this situation would prove to be a better asset than the 'heavy' equipment of the Greeks. Not to mention, the Mongolians have superior metals from which their weapons are constructed.

Very well thought out answer. I love history, and you did a great job utilizing your knowledge and applying it here; however, i must say that you are a little mis-informed regarding the combat experience of Alexander. The biggest thing you missed is that the Greeks invented grappling, and performed what was called Greco-style grappling. It is a very up-close and personal fighting style, utilizes a lot of submissions and meant to mame and disable an enemy; Albeit, as a last resort as no weapons are needed here, but it is extremely brutal. And, he trained in this for most of his life; being of young a noble birth, Alexander was afforded this training from a very young age.

You also referenced his shield being to large and cantankerous; that is very true when considering the Spartans, as they coined the use of a large round shield, or Aspis; this made their formation, the phalanx, nearly impregnable from mele assault.; However, Macedonian did use this formation, but their weaponry was a little different than Spartan weaponry. Their sword, the Kopis, was a medium length, medium weight weapon, with a curvature that allowed for deep lacerations between armor joints (this weapon was known as, "The Nasty One", lol). It was a very fast weapon, and very deft for close quarter combat. You also mentioned that Alexander would bring a spear to the fight; this is not true. Their spear, or Sarissa, was about 18-20 ft long, and was only used by the regular Hoplites of their infantry. Alexander was a cavalry man, and didnt use a spear like his other cavalrymen did, as he was the leader and mainly brandished his sword. He would equip himself for a H2H fight with his standard Kopis and round shield (not the Aspis); he may also have a Lakonian short sword stashed away as well (mainy for stabbing over a round-shield).

Round 1: @TotalBalance: you are right here! A slow moving Macedonian infantry would not be able to engage the fast paced cavalry of a Mongolian army; however, Macedonian cavalry was considered to be some of the fastest moving units in warfare. That would be the only edge for Macedon. Unless they can quickly engage the Mongol missile cavalry, and sucker them in for the old hammer and anvil tactic, it will ble a slow slaughter for Macedon. Khan FTW 8 - 9/10.

Round 2: Goes to Alexander. It would be a good fight, but the favor would never leave Alexander's side. He is far too efficient of a killer, has trained his entire life for single combat and has no resmorse for life. Genghis Khan was a great leader, and a very fine warrior, but not a professional warrior. Fighting was not his life's trade, that was just the only way to bring the people together under one banner.

It would start out with sword and shield, and if Genghis Khan is able to trade blows with Alexander, it will undoubtedly turn into a fist/grappling fight, and that is definitely where Alexander the Great would ruin Genghis Khan. Alexander the Great FTW 9-10/10.

#23 Posted by Kratesis (4266 posts) - - Show Bio

Alexander would completely destroy Genghis in both rounds.

Genghis simply lacked any significant tactical skill. He was adequate and commanding battles, however he fought almost every battle against foes who were weaker then him in many critical areas. His armies completely failed to conquer several parts of the earth, and were simply driven out of several kingdoms because they focused much to heavily on one tactical system, the light calvery.

Alexander on the other hand was the greatest tactical genius to ever live, as demonstrated by a life of victory after victory. He faced virtually every single enemy the world had. In all cases he eventually proved himself superior.

Not only this but in his encounter with horse archers he utterly destroyed them in a single battle, proving the superiority of a combined arms force over a mono arms force, and his personal tactical mastery.

In hand to hand combat his vastly greater experience, courage, and personal skill would carry him through to victory probably every time.

This is a stomp I'm afraid, in favor of Alexander the Great.

#24 Posted by OmgOmgWtfWtf (7031 posts) - - Show Bio

@nerdork: Very good analysis on your part. I do concede that my knowledge of Western history is not the best. I mentioned in a second post that Alexander the Great would win in the h2h department because OP listed this purely as a h2h fight, no weapons allowed. The Greeks did learn h2h combat such as wrestling and boxing. Not much is written about Genghis Khan's h2h fighting capabilities and such he would lose mostly because Alexander is younger and has more training in that department.

#25 Posted by Agent9149 (2894 posts) - - Show Bio

The pretty son of a king, and intelligent strategist vs. The ruthless conqueror who took over all of the Asian continent with massive numbers and brute strength.

I give it to Hun round one and Alexander round two.

#26 Posted by TotalBalance (742 posts) - - Show Bio

@Kratesis said:

Alexander would completely destroy Genghis in both rounds.

Genghis simply lacked any significant tactical skill. He was adequate and commanding battles, however he fought almost every battle against foes who were weaker then him in many critical areas. His armies completely failed to conquer several parts of the earth, and were simply driven out of several kingdoms because they focused much to heavily on one tactical system, the light calvery.

Alexander on the other hand was the greatest tactical genius to ever live, as demonstrated by a life of victory after victory. He faced virtually every single enemy the world had. In all cases he eventually proved himself superior.

Not only this but in his encounter with horse archers he utterly destroyed them in a single battle, proving the superiority of a combined arms force over a mono arms force, and his personal tactical mastery.

In hand to hand combat his vastly greater experience, courage, and personal skill would carry him through to victory probably every time.

This is a stomp I'm afraid, in favor of Alexander the Great.

You are being obtuse, there is simply no way that Alexander can win, 1500 years of technology would be far to much for him to combat. You would be abandoning all reason if you say that Alexanders army was better than the armies of the multitude of enemies the Mongols steamrolled over. An Alexander who was in command of a modernized iron age army might stand a chance but the simple fact is he would get crushed under the boot of 1500 years of technological progress, more so than losing to due to Genghis being a superior commander (although I would personally consider them about even).

#27 Edited by nerdork (4038 posts) - - Show Bio

@Agent9149 said:

The pretty son of a king, and intelligent strategist vs. The ruthless conqueror who took over all of the Asian continent with massive numbers and brute strength.

I give it to Hun round one and Alexander round two.

I completely agree with your answer for the outcomes, as there is not much Macedon could do to close the gap with the Mongols (though, if they were able to close the gap, the Mongols would be slaughtered by the mechanical and methodical formation and tactics of Macedon) and would simply be picked apart, slowly, with arrows. But you should remember that Alexander the Great took over most of Asia as well (not just north east asia, nearly all of it), with far less numbers, and against enemies in far greater numbers than Genghis Khan had. And it is important to note that Alexander the Great may very well have been a pretty rich boy, but he is also an amazing athlete, efficient killer and in rather large size compared to most greeks at the time, definitely larger than Genghis (which does count for a lot when considering an individual warrior).

#28 Posted by jeanroygrant (20191 posts) - - Show Bio

@Sylvain said:

Alexander

#29 Posted by thekneesofbees (5 posts) - - Show Bio

I agree with most everything that TotalBalance and OMG have to say however they are mistaken on a couple of points. First of all Alexander wouldn't have been a foot soldier. The companion cavalry of Macedonia were pretty damn famous and Alexander himself was supposed to be one of the best. Hell Bucephalus (Alexander's horse) has more feats then a lot of famous soldiers. Also bronze armor and weaponry went out of style like 700 years before Alexander. I would probably give the personal combat to Alexander. Cavalry archers really aren't amazing against other cavalry.

#30 Posted by MonsterStomp (17887 posts) - - Show Bio

The Great Zander has this.

#31 Posted by OmgOmgWtfWtf (7031 posts) - - Show Bio

@thekneesofbees: Calvary would overwhelm calvary archers, the only problem is that Genghis Khan's army is compromised almost entirely of archers. His army was entirely on horseback, it would be kind of hard for The Companion Calvary and the Thesselian Calvary to break the ranks of the opposing forces when they would be retreating from their advances. The Battle of Legnica, considered one of the biggest losses for the European during the Mongal assault of Hungary proved the inefficiencies of martial fighting and European tactics. The Europeans had a superior army of 25,000 (consisting of Hungarians, Germans, French, and many other Christian nations) versus around 10,000 light archers on horseback. Keep in mind that the Mongols do not use infantry for the majority of their conflicts, nor use heavy formations, the Mongols used a very loose formation. The Mongol tactics were essentially a long series of feigned attacks and faked withdrawals from widely dispersed groups, which were designed to inflict a constant slow drain by ranged fire, disrupt the enemy formation and draw larger numbers away from the main body into ambush and flank attacks. These were standard Mongol tactics used in virtually all of their major battles; they were made possible by continual training and superb battlefield communication, which used a system of flags. The traditional European warfare method of hand-to-hand combat between knights ended in catastrophe when it was deployed against the Mongol forces, as the Mongols were able to keep a distance and advance with a superior number of Calvary. The Phalanx position though very strong lacked protection from the sides and rear allowing for those positions to be flanked, Alexander's army supplemented these positions with the Calvary to protect those open position. While the Mongols would most likely be unable to break the formation through brute strength alone, they could break ranks with screamer arrows and flaming arrows. Common tactics used by the Mongols. Also their steel head arrows would be more than strong enough to pierce their armor, since it is capable of piercing the armor of heavy medieval knights. Alexander's army was lightly dressed compared to other armies, and their Calvary more so.

#32 Posted by whydama (1093 posts) - - Show Bio

Ghenghis Khan army wins. Iron arrows. And also I think he has numerical advantage.

H2h I would give it to Alexander. Because, Ghenghis is a cavalryman. I dont think he is as good a fighter on foot as he would be on horseback.

#33 Posted by AmonSet (156 posts) - - Show Bio

Genghis without a doubt in round 1. The main reasons have already been stated by others. Thought experiment: Present NATO vs WW2 Germany, who wins? WW2 Germany vs WW1 Germany, who wins? Gaps in technological, strategical, and tactical advancement tend to close the deal in most of these hypotheticals (assuming use of historical strategies, tactics, technologies). Even knowing little about Genghis, the smart money is on him in round 1 just by looking at the dates. H2H? Not enough data.

#34 Posted by PrinceAragorn1 (17328 posts) - - Show Bio

@OmgOmgWtfWtf: You're quite the fan of Khan, Aren't you :D

#35 Posted by OmgOmgWtfWtf (7031 posts) - - Show Bio

@PrinceAragorn1: It's mainly because Asian generals tend to be overlooked when it comes to history. They are always underrated, but what can I expect. We live in a Western world that favors Western tradition. Of course they would look to their leaders as being the best. I just don't think Alexander would win, especially given the circumstances.

#36 Posted by nerdork (4038 posts) - - Show Bio

@OmgOmgWtfWtf said:

@PrinceAragorn1: It's mainly because Asian generals tend to be overlooked when it comes to history. They are always underrated, but what can I expect. We live in a Western world that favors Western tradition. Of course they would look to their leaders as being the best. I just don't think Alexander would win, especially given the circumstances.

I totally agree that the Asian generals do not get the respect they properly deserve; however, Tsun Tzu is one of the most respected military geniuses of all time. His work is still studied today by every country around the world. IT is a requirement, in our military (US Military, all branches)), for all Comissioned Officers to inherently learn and pass a very difficult exam based on "The Art of War". But, you dont ever see History Channel Specials revolving around the Ming Dynasty generals like; Chang Yuchun or Chen Lin, whom followed the Ming Dynasty's founder Zhu Yuanzhang, and lead an army that united Southern and Northern China.Where's their love? Huh? lol

#37 Posted by nerdork (4038 posts) - - Show Bio

@Agent9149 said:

The pretty son of a king, and intelligent strategist vs. The ruthless conqueror who took over all of the Asian continent with massive numbers and brute strength.

I give it to Hun round one and Alexander round two.

Something else to consider is that Genghis Khan was not Hun. Huns were Turkic peoples, roughly from the same area; whereas, Mongolians are an Asiatic people. They are confused quite often.

#38 Posted by OmgOmgWtfWtf (7031 posts) - - Show Bio

@nerdork said:

@Agent9149 said:

The pretty son of a king, and intelligent strategist vs. The ruthless conqueror who took over all of the Asian continent with massive numbers and brute strength.

I give it to Hun round one and Alexander round two.

Something else to consider is that Genghis Khan was not Hun. Huns were Turkic peoples, roughly from the same area; whereas, Mongolians are an Asiatic people. They are confused quite often.

Actually what is funny is that some Mongolians have very European features. Probably from mixing with other steppe people from further west. Some Mongolians have red hair and blue eyes, and palish skin. DNA testing confirms that some of them do have trace amounts of European blood. Just food for thought :D

I totally agree that the Asian generals do not get the respect they properly deserve; however, Tsun Tzu is one of the most respected military geniuses of all time. His work is still studied today by every country around the world. IT is a requirement, in our military (US Military, all branches)), for all Comissioned Officers to inherently learn and pass a very difficult exam based on "The Art of War". But, you dont ever see History Channel Specials revolving around the Ming Dynasty generals like; Chang Yuchun or Chen Lin, whom followed the Ming Dynasty's founder Zhu Yuanzhang, and lead an army that united Southern and Northern China.Where's their love? Huh? lol

CCTV did a very long documentary on the entire history of China, it is pretty interesting. It's on youtube, split into many sections. Good to watch and learn some things that aren't mentioned in regular history books.

#39 Posted by nerdork (4038 posts) - - Show Bio

@OmgOmgWtfWtf: Oh Totally! Mongolians have some of the coolest history EVER; especially when looking into their heritage. They are a mixture of Finnish, Magyar, Japanese and Chinese. Too bad the Great Khans eventually fell.

#40 Posted by thekneesofbees (5 posts) - - Show Bio

Yeah I still do agree that Khan would take the army battle. I was just saying that I disagree with you and think that Alexander would take the personal combat.

#41 Posted by jdf297 (8 posts) - - Show Bio

first round alex

second round genghis

#42 Edited by Albertphytagoras (1826 posts) - - Show Bio

First round is a stomp in favor of gengish.

Second round is debatable...

#43 Posted by Fallschirmjager (17451 posts) - - Show Bio

Side note. Ghenis is highly overrated as a conqueror. Most of the Mongol territory was taken after he died. And a lot of that territory was uninhabited. And when they usually destroyed the land and killed all the populations.

Alexander battled with armies, he battle with diplomacy, he battled on the open plains he battled in sieges, etc. He is the better conqueror.

The Mongol Army is about 1000+ years ahead in technology though, so they would destroy his army.

Online
#44 Edited by ShootingNova (17038 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm not sue about the personal fight, but Khan definitely wins army wise. Not the biggest geek on history, but from I have read:

Khan's army was virtually completely composed of horse archers, the more accomplished ones known as the Mangudai. In smaller groups, his armies utilized hit-and-run tactics whilst making use of environmental advantage, something Khan capitalized on more than Alexander did.

Even in larger groups, Khan showed more effectiveness. The Mongol Empire was more used to fighting larger armies because they relied on more than just sheer number to win their battles. Tactically, they could very well be superior. They might have had access to the Bodkin Arrow which would give them more effectiveness in piercing Alexander's troops' armor.

Side note. Ghenis is highly overrated as a conqueror. Most of the Mongol territory was taken after he died. And a lot of that territory was uninhabited. And when they usually destroyed the land and killed all the populations.

Alexander battled with armies, he battle with diplomacy, he battled on the open plains he battled in sieges, etc. He is the better conqueror.

The Mongol Army is about 1000+ years ahead in technology though, so they would destroy his army.

Umm.... Alexander the Great would be more overrated. Most of the time I see people saying he stomps everybody.

And the Mongol Empire being over a thousand years after him doesn't mean they have a thousand years' worth of technological advantage - they don't. The Mongols were mainly roaming nomads who didn't achieve much by with technology to suggest they would annihilate Alexander by virtue of technology alone.

The Mongols started off with approximately 10, 000 men only, according to some sources, and gained more as they conquered more lands, with many smaller ones immediately ceding to them after they had the reputation of crushing opposing armies.

#45 Posted by 18hunt (2903 posts) - - Show Bio

Khan, he was bigger and stronger. And his army was bigger and stronger + he had horses and all that stuff (and his horse men>>>>>>>>>>>>>Alexander's Calvary

#46 Edited by Fallschirmjager (17451 posts) - - Show Bio

@shootingnova: People think Genghis was solely responsible for the Mongol quests, when he died before most of it began including the invasions of China, the middle east and Russia. To me he is more overrated and its not close.

The mongol recurve bow is a huge technology advance. Better saddles and especially stirrups are a HUGE technology advance. Nitpicking terminology doesn't' change the technology advantage, which is present.

Moreover, the Mongol army would had a big advanced in cavalry, especially mounted archers. Alexander's army had very few archers, very few cavalry (it rarely made up more than 20% of his army at most) and even less mounted archers (he had about 1000 horse archers by the time he invaded India).

Technology also includes tactics. And Alexander's infantry fought in phalanx formation, which is a slow moving block of spears - they would get annihilated by a very mobile, mainly ranged attacking army like the mongols, size is irrelevant.

So combined troops, troop make up, technology, tactics and everything and Alexander really can't win here. Armys of different eras cannot be compared for these reasons.

That doesn't change the fact that I think he is a better conqueror of his time. As mentioned he fought in every type of battle and even conquered land without fighting, which is infinitely more impressive. And he accomplished all of this while he was in his 20's.

Online
#47 Posted by ShootingNova (17038 posts) - - Show Bio

@fallschirmjager: I never said anything about Genghis being solely responsible, given how Kublai Khan and other future rulers took much land themselves.

Possessing recurver/composite bows with bodkin arrows is certainly an advantage, but that isn't the only deciding factor.

Tactical advantage =/= technological advantage, even though they tend to be interchangeable and are often related. Technology can help tactics, but mobility and the likes could be achieved by any cavalry-heavy force.

I would agree that you shouldn't compare armies of different time frames.

#48 Posted by Fallschirmjager (17451 posts) - - Show Bio

@shootingnova: I never said you did. But many people do. Hence = overrated to me.

Online
#49 Edited by ShootingNova (17038 posts) - - Show Bio

@fallschirmjager: Well, Kublai took over much of northern China, a feat Genghis could never boast of.

#50 Edited by Fallschirmjager (17451 posts) - - Show Bio

@shootingnova: I'm aware, lol.

Some guys I think are underrated that aren't from the "western" world are guys like Timur for example.

There's another Muslim commander who fought during their conquests who had over like 100 victories too. Though I can't remember his name and couldn't spell it even if I could.

Online