Julius Caesar vs. Ghengis Khan

[Exanthos]

If they both had the best armies of their nations (and were in the same time period of course), who would win? The numerous Mongols, or the deciplined Romans?

EDIT: Tactics head to head and empire vs. empire. Both Romans and Mongolians were adaptable, and a war between the two would certainly be an amazing thing.

[Imperial August Chin]

It would truly be an interesting battle, but i find that the Romans, with possibly the greatest leader of Miliatary history would win this battle.

[Exanthos]

Why? Their technology is simpler, and they might be overun...

[Imperial August Chin]

Yes, that may be so, but Genghis Khan was in a different time, if he was in the Roman era, or the Romans were in Genghis Khans era, that would be a different story.

[Blue Knight™]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Crimmo15:

Yes, that may be so, but Genghis Khan was in a different time, if he was in the Roman era, or the Romans were in Genghis Khans era, that would be a different story.

either say it like this , give Genghis Khan the Hun army vs the Roman Army (best units and Julius as general) or Genghis Khan (mongol horde) vs Byzantine Empire (with Julius Ceaser best army ) so then they both have era appropriate weps units and all that :)

[Bullfrog]

The Rock

[Imperial August Chin]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย mastabruce68:

The Rock

???

[Jonboy]

Mongols.

Static legions would not have done well against the Mongol hit and run tatctics. The Roman legions liked nice neat battle lines at 100 paces. Khans army was based on speed and surprise, a little like the Guderian's Panzer doctrine in WW2. They had a habit of turning up where they were least expected and, in doing so, sowing confusion and panic in their opponents.

[thewelshwizard *T*R*Y*]

I have to agree with Jonboy. For me, Cavalry to take it, Infantry to hold it :)

[ElPrezCBF]

The Mongols imo. Their main advantage was their mobility. While both Romans and Mongols had good logistics, the Mongols were spartans on horseback. Both Romans and Mongols relied on open battle to win but the Mongols had the ability to change tactics and plans at very short notice. They had a bigger fear factor than the Romans because of their more frequent brutal behavior to those who resisted them and lost. This allowed them to avoid many siege battles because their enemies often preferred surrender to the alternative. Despite their brutality, genghis khan usually spared those who surrendered without fighting. But once fighting started, no quarter was given. Mongol tactics are also still studied by modern military academies today.

Edit: Mongols also had the ability to win siege battles after they adopted siege technology from China. I would assume that they would have known how to adopt such technology if they were able to travel back in time to face the Romans. Another thing I forgot to mention is Mongols often had the option to retreat or lure pursuing enemies into ambushes because of their mobility. Romans on the other hand had to pick battlegrounds that suited their training and tactics to win. If not, they might be destroyed like what happened in Teutoburg forest.

[HairyHotshot]

You are making the assumption that the Mongols were undisciplined hordes of horse archers. They were anything but. Through a code of draconian punishments, Ghengis Khan created an army that would follow any and every order without fail. If one soldier did not obey, his entire unit would be put to death... so on and so forth. The Mongols actually had superior technology to the Romans as well. The Mongols successfully conquered southern Song China at the time when they were the most advanced civilization in history. The Song developed the first clocks, the first cannons, and the largest population in the ancient world. The Mongols employed their subjects to share their knowledge and Ta Da. The most formidable army the world had ever seen. Rome would have no chance against Mongolian strategy with Song technology. Advantage Mongols

[l33tness08]

Why is the go-to always Julius Caesar.

Personally, I've always found it slightly odd that people go with him as the "best" general of all time. He lost a few battles. Certainly didn't steamroll everyone he got to.

I think Alexander is a better candidate.

[l33tness08]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย |TUPF| Xanthulis:

Why? Their technology is simpler, and they might be overun...

Tone of this kinda makes me feel like you've made up your mind...

[Mikaelmorgansjodin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae

thats the answer:) even if its not mongols

[Odd fella]

Ghenghis Khan would've encircled the legions with his horse archers in order to force them into tetsudo. He would then wait, wait and wait some more hours, maybe even days until the Romans became tired from holding their shields and standing in ready stance. By nightfall the adrenaline would disapear and fatigue would start to set in.

At some point the horse archers would begin to fire into the tetsudo, the job is not to kill but to wither and cause exhaustion. Ghengis would prefer to feint retreat and fight in the heat in order to speed up the enemy's fatigue. Maybe he would prefer fire arrows to regular arrows to get the men even hotter and possibly suffer from heat stroke. After a certain period of time the legion would then be charged by lancers and collapse under little pressure.

The Romans would like to meet the enemy head on and engage as early as possible, the Mongols would prefer to run circles around their enemy.

I prefer Ceasar and the Romans but it is the cunning and the mobile who have the greater advantage.

[A Disappointed Horse]

Genghis Khan is the greatest (in my view) military leader in history. A battle with Rome would've gone the same way as the battle of Carrhae. The Roman infantry would've had no way to even start fighting the Mongols.