NationStates Jolt Archive

Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, Chengis Khan, and Shaka Zulu have all been brought to 2005 with 100,000 of their best soldiers. They and their armies have been brought up to date on modern inventions and tactics and are now magically able to understand and operate modern military equipment. They have their choice of modern equipment. The battle field is Europe and no intervention from other modern forces is allowed.

Who wins?

Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, Chengis Khan, and Shaka Zulu have all been brought to 2005 with 100,000 of their best soldiers. They and their armies have been brought up to date on modern inventions and tactics and are now magically able to understand and operate modern military equipment. They have their choice of modern equipment. The battle field is Europe and no intervention from other modern forces is allowed.

Who wins?
Meh...I find the situation more interesting if they could use the tech from their own time. So much of each of their successes were based on the weapons they used at the time - the Greek phalanx, the Roman gladius, the Mongol leather armor, those cool shields the Zulus used...

That being said, I'd pick Alexander or Genghis. I think they were both better tacticians given that they were originally placed in much more difficult positions than the other two (particularly Genghis) and accomplished much more than the other two. If I had to pick, I'd pick Genghis. But it'd be damn close.

Genghis because his way of fighting was the closest to what people use today, with Blitzkrieg and so on.
He had proper, disciplined platoons, communicating with them through flag signs, he fought very mobile with feigned retreats and so on.
The others just couldn't get their fighting style aligned with modern technology as well.

I concur with my esteemed colleague. Everyone but Genghis Khan excelled at a form of warfare that is now extinct. I think Khan would find his strategies best suited for modern warfare, and would adapt faster than the other three.

I concur with my esteemed colleague. Everyone but Genghis Khan excelled at a form of warfare that is now extinct. I think Khan would find his strategies best suited for modern warfare, and would adapt faster than the other three.
It was a hard choice, but Khan's people were nomads right... so they know the effectiveness of lightning strikes and being mobile. while Ceaser and Alex will have chariots, without infantry support, they would be cut down.

Alexander for me.

Even though he was largely infantry; he still managed to defeat a horse based people(blanked on their name of course) located in or near what's now afghanistan.

Meh...I find the situation more interesting if they could use the tech from their own time. So much of each of their successes were based on the weapons they used at the time - the Greek phalanx, the Roman gladius, the Mongol leather armor, those cool shields the Zulus used...

It was set up as modern tech to equalize certain deficiencies in technology, particularly for the Zulu, but also taking into account metallurgical advances.

And I suspect people may not be familiar with Shaka's military - good discipline, lightning fast manuver, and pincer tactics were part of his bag of tricks.

I'd say...Alexander. Brilliant at manuevering forces, and given modern communications equipment, he could possibly pull off a perfect double-envelopment manuever and defeat his challenger. Just my opinion though.

I didn't vote for Ghengis because, his forces were stopped from getting into Europe by a odd mish-mash german-polish coalition. Knowing those two nations, they probably didn't stop quarrelling even during battles. Beyond that, much of the conquered area was open flat steppes, often occupied by various dinky, unorganized nomads.

I would think, that if everyone is brought up to date technology wise, probably alexander. Probably because of his education and interest in natural science he would most easily be able to adapt to and appreciate modern weapons. He was also the most creative of the bunch.

I voted Alexander. Genghis was using mobile tactics true, but that's just because he was good at riding horses. I'm sure while chasing the Parthians Alexander was wishing for, and would definitely have made good use of, his own mobile forces, it's just the infantry of the day couldn't really cope with mounted threats. Today's infantry... can.

I didn't vote for Ghengis because, his forces were stopped from getting into Europe by a odd mish-mash german-polish coalition.
Actually, they were Poles and Teutonic Knights. Genghis was long dead when they met. And the Mongolians won, then their leader died and according to their law, they had to go back to Mongolia to vote for a new boss Khan.
When they came back they concentrated on other places.
Actually, the only force that actually ever meaningfully defeated the Mongolians were Egyptian Mamelucks.

I would take Alexander over Ghengis. I personally think Alexander was a master tactician. Ghengis wasnt as keen as Alexander.

Genghis his Tactics were no different to what we use now.-mostly

He split his forces and went womp here and womp there.

Good strong Cavalry leader.

And ignore that only vote for Shaka that was an accident i stick with Genghis!

Shaka is lame!

Although Shaka was probably closest to Genghis in the way he fought and organised his warriors.

Although Shaka was probably closest to Genghis in the way he fought and organised his warriors.

Exactly why he's on the list.

Well, I chose Ceasar, if only for the fact that, unlike the other three, he is already familiar with European geography. He has the "home field advantage", so to speak.

Place this fight in North America, and I give it to Alexander.

Alexander for me.

Even though he was largely infantry; he still managed to defeat a horse based people(blanked on their name of course) located in or near what's now afghanistan.Fool, the strongest part of Alexander's army was his cavalry.

Weeeell...

Julius Caesar would have made a DANDY scifi writer for Baen. For Rome, I'd rather have Scipio Africanus.

Actually, overall I'd prefer to have Hannibal Barca of Carthage. He's pretty much the only general in ancient history to have fought an empire of equivalent size with the same technology base - and won his battles.

If Carthage the city weren't idiots, they would have supported him in his war against Rome, and Rome the city would have been sacked by Hannibal's troops.

But, of course, Rome won due to the stupidity of its enemies...

But I digress. My vote is for Shaka Zulu and Alexander, recognizing they have nothing in common, and thus, no conflicting points, ally against JC and GC, who by that time would probably be fighting each other, with JC winning. Why?

Rome, by JC's time, was mostly an infantry nation. By the time of Belisarius (Justinian), Rome was mostly cavalry... gained from the Huns. But Rome has that background of certain victory, and a tradition of infantry kicking ass.

That and JC was his time's MacArthur.

Actually, overall I'd prefer to have Hannibal Barca of Carthage. He's pretty much the only general in ancient history to have fought an empire of equivalent size with the same technology base - and won his battles.

If Carthage the city weren't idiots, they would have supported him in his war against Rome, and Rome the city would have been sacked by Hannibal's troops.



you stole my post! Honestly though, Hannibal would kick arse, anyones. Firstly, he had the numidians, some of the greatest skirmishing cavalry the world has ever known. He also would not have fallen for Genghis tactic of divide and conquer, instead using his army piecemeal, in an aggressive action that would deprive the Mongols of their advantage, momentum. He also had elephants, and the seleucids were known for armouring their elephants from head to tail, making them all but invulnerable to Genghis cavalry. Hannibal didn't play for the Seleucids, but if we assume that he had the capability to, that is, not African elephants, and with far more resources than he traditionally operated with, he doubtless would have.


If we play to the thread, Hannibal gains an even larger advantage. The Mongols were overwhelmingly dependent on their cavalry for success whilst Hannibal Barca was adept at combined arms, the infantry and the cavalry working together to smash an enemy. A blitzkrieg only works whilst it has pace. Kill it, and you kill the attack. Armour divisions and infantry squads would only assist him in his victory.

Unfortunately, however, he was not included. Which is why I would give victory to Genghis Khan. it is doubtful that any of these other commanders would pay correct heed to organisation and lightning warfare that Genghis did, and so would be overwhelmed.

*snip*
I have to quibble a bit. If we're going with period tech, the Mongols have an enormous advantage, particularly in terms of armor. The Mongols used a particular type of leather that was incredibly difficult to penetrate even with the metallurgical knowledge of the day (over 1000 years after Hannibal), while allowing for a full range of movement. The Mongol Cavalry was so well discplined and organized that their cavalry could play more roles than it was traditionally expected to. As a result, the Carthaginian diversity would be overwhelmed by superior Mongolian technology, organization, and mobility. Those elephants would be totally outmaneuvered by the lightening-fast Monogl cavalry, and the infantry would be trampled.

Edit: In modern times, Genghis would quickly gain air superiority - it's the type of warfare he's familiar with. After this happened, his victory would be inevitable.

Alexander the Great.

Much of the Mongols' victories came from lighter armor and smaller & faster horses as well as the compound bow. True, their troops were very well trained, and well led but their "technology" as well as their enemies weaknesses is what truly gave them the edge.

Julius Caeser was also a great general who was undefeated in battle, but I'm wondering if that was more due to weakness of his enemies as opposed to his actual strengths... I would have

Mozart was such a genius in his field, his written music notes for his operas never needed any corrections... everything played out in his head and once he was satisfied with the product, only then did he write it down. The same can be said about Alexander. The Battle of Gaugamela is one of the greatest examples of a smaller force defeating a larger one solely because of tactical brilliance (Alexander was outnumbered 6 to 1). The only other battle in history that is a greater example is the Battle of Cannae, won by Hannibal Barca.

The night before Gaugamela, Alexander played out the battle in his mind and saw exactly how he can manuever his army so as to cause a gap to form in Dacias's own line, which he exploited. He also never lost a battle.

Shaka Zulu I know little about, but from what I've read it doesn't seem that he did anything as spectacular as Cannae or Gaugamela.

In modern times, Genghis would quickly gain air superiority - it's the type of warfare he's familiar with. After this happened, his victory would be inevitable.

How is Ghenghis Khan familiar with aerial warfare? If anything, he would be more aquainted with Combined Arms Warfare, Blitzkrieg, and Rapid Dominance.

the Great Khan in Afghanistan tricks the enemy (persians/iranians?) into thinking he is surrounded then woop woop woop shoes on the other foot.

Much of the Mongols' victories came from lighter armor and smaller & faster horses as well as the compound bow. True, their troops were very well trained, and well led but their "technology" as well as their enemies weaknesses is what truly gave them the edge.
It's difficult to label their successes as a result of enemy weakness. They conquered the Chinese Empire, the Middle East, and most of modern Russia. At the very least, that sheer mass of people should have stopped them. But it didn't. Not only that, but Genghis was a brilliant organizer. He united disparate tribes with different identities into one great army - his leadership is historically unparalled.

He also never lost a victory.
Not many people have.

Just Those 4? why?

Napoleon?
Wellington?
Rommell?
MacAuthur?
Patton?
Eisenhower?
Etc Etc

Not many people have.

Bah! I meant "He never lost a battle."

He united disparate tribes with different identities into one great army

Same can be said about Alexander. He conquered Egypt and Persia - the greatest empires of their time while being heavily outnumbered.

t the very least, that sheer mass of people should have stopped them. But it didn't.

Seeing as how regular citizens arnt well armed or trained, and considering the Mongols slaughtered millions, it's no surprise that sheer mass did NOT stop them.

Ghenghis Khan was a great leader, on and off the field, but it wasn't just tactics that led to their victories whereas for Alexander it was mostly his tactics that allowed him to conquer so much.

Just Those 4? why?

Napoleon?
Wellington?
Rommell?
MacAuthur?
Patton?
Eisenhower?
Etc Etc
You sully the good name of the top 3 with those bottom 3.

Just Those 4? why?

Napoleon?
Wellington?
Rommell?
MacAuthur?
Patton?
Eisenhower?
Etc Etc
From your list, only Napoleon was also Supreme Leader of his people. The rest are just fuctionaries. (BRILLIANT, but just functionaries) Actually Patton was a daft old bastard who would have tilted at windmills were it not for the tight leash Ike kept him on.

I'd go with Alexander simply because he was the best strategist of them all. If they all had the same modern equipment it would come down to tactics rather than who has superior weaponry. If the battle was with what the four of them traditionally fought with I would give it to Genghis

I have to quibble a bit. If we're going with period tech, the Mongols have an enormous advantage, particularly in terms of armor. The Mongols used a particular type of leather that was incredibly difficult to penetrate even with the metallurgical knowledge of the day (over 1000 years after Hannibal), while allowing for a full range of movement. The Mongol Cavalry was so well discplined and organized that their cavalry could play more roles than it was traditionally expected to. As a result, the Carthaginian diversity would be overwhelmed by superior Mongolian technology, organization, and mobility. Those elephants would be totally outmaneuvered by the lightening-fast Monogl cavalry, and the infantry would be trampled.

Edit: In modern times, Genghis would quickly gain air superiority - it's the type of warfare he's familiar with. After this happened, his victory would be inevitable.


There is no way that one can out-organise Hannibals army. Also, it is not so much the Mongolians armour that is key, but their horses. without cavalry, they're pretty much dead, and a good spear can penetrate all known cavalry armour, it's simply a matter of momentum. Also, it's unlikely that Mongolian armour could prevent a weapon such as a javelin penetrating it, such as the Numidians were wont to use. Also, without breaking his formation, Genghis' arrow harassment would have hade substantially less impact than medieval armies allowed it. By splitting their troops to wander into ambush after ambush, Genghis did not even NEED a good army, such as Hannibal was gifted to have. If Genghis was not continually able to divide medieval armies up to conquer them, then he would not have had such a successful campaign. Genghis army does have significant advantages, especially in home territory - it is difficult to off-balance the Mongolian armies such as Hannibal was skilled at doing, and on the steppes, there is little potential for ambush, such as in Trebia and Trasimene. Genghis superior mobility is also a misnomer. it is far harder to feed a cavalry army. Perhaps in a single battle it is more maouevrable, but when they have ran out of arrows, multitudes of which would be buried in enemy shields, and the ground about them, after numerous cases of retiring from the field, they would be forced to move on or simply run out of forage. Horses need pasture to feed on, or you end up with a few thousand starving Mongols and their horses. As such, it is even less equipped to fight a winter war, or lay prolonged siege to a city. In a city siege, the cavalry would count for almost nought.


Secondly, if we consider modern technology, then Genghis' possible obsession with air superiority would be his undoing. You can't win a war with just air power, as it cannot take territory, and it cannot hold it. It's been shown... largely ineffective as a morale weapon as the London blitz testifies. Genghis may simply try to do too much with air power.

There is no way that one can out-organise Hannibals army. Also, it is not so much the Mongolians armour that is key, but their horses. without cavalry, they're pretty much dead, and a good spear can penetrate all known cavalry armour, it's simply a matter of momentum. Also, it's unlikely that Mongolian armour could prevent a weapon such as a javelin penetrating it, such as the Numidians were wont to use. Also, without breaking his formation, Genghis' arrow harassment would have hade substantially less impact than medieval armies allowed it. By splitting their troops to wander into ambush after ambush, Genghis did not even NEED a good army, such as Hannibal was gifted to have. If Genghis was not continually able to divide medieval armies up to conquer them, then he would not have had such a successful campaign. Genghis army does have significant advantages, especially in home territory - it is difficult to off-balance the Mongolian armies such as Hannibal was skilled at doing, and on the steppes, there is little potential for ambush, such as in Trebia and Trasimene. Genghis superior mobility is also a misnomer. it is far harder to feed a cavalry army. Perhaps in a single battle it is more maouevrable, but when they have ran out of arrows, multitudes of which would be buried in enemy shields, and the ground about them, after numerous cases of retiring from the field, they would be forced to move on or simply run out of forage. Horses need pasture to feed on, or you end up with a few thousand starving Mongols and their horses. As such, it is even less equipped to fight a winter war, or lay prolonged siege to a city. In a city siege, the cavalry would count for almost nought.


Secondly, if we consider modern technology, then Genghis' possible obsession with air superiority would be his undoing. You can't win a war with just air power, as it cannot take territory, and it cannot hold it. It's been shown... largely ineffective as a morale weapon as the London blitz testifies. Genghis may simply try to do too much with air power.
I need to sleep now, but I have my ripostes ready for the morn.

Yes ... but Shaka Khan is gonna rock you.

There is no way that one can out-organise Hannibals army. Also, it is not so much the Mongolians armour that is key, but their horses. without cavalry, they're pretty much dead, and a good spear can penetrate all known cavalry armour, it's simply a matter of momentum. Also, it's unlikely that Mongolian armour could prevent a weapon such as a javelin penetrating it, such as the Numidians were wont to use. Also, without breaking his formation, Genghis' arrow harassment would have hade substantially less impact than medieval armies allowed it. By splitting their troops to wander into ambush after ambush, Genghis did not even NEED a good army, such as Hannibal was gifted to have. If Genghis was not continually able to divide medieval armies up to conquer them, then he would not have had such a successful campaign. Genghis army does have significant advantages, especially in home territory - it is difficult to off-balance the Mongolian armies such as Hannibal was skilled at doing, and on the steppes, there is little potential for ambush, such as in Trebia and Trasimene. Genghis superior mobility is also a misnomer. it is far harder to feed a cavalry army. Perhaps in a single battle it is more maouevrable, but when they have ran out of arrows, multitudes of which would be buried in enemy shields, and the ground about them, after numerous cases of retiring from the field, they would be forced to move on or simply run out of forage. Horses need pasture to feed on, or you end up with a few thousand starving Mongols and their horses. As such, it is even less equipped to fight a winter war, or lay prolonged siege to a city. In a city siege, the cavalry would count for almost nought.



You're forgetting that the question stated that they would be using modern technology. No horses, leather armor, javelins, shields, elephants, bows, whatever. They would be using guns and tanks and jets. It doesn't matter what they used back in their day. What matters is who would be able to best apply their own personal battle style in a modern setting.

There is no way that one can out-organise Hannibals army. Also, it is not so much the Mongolians armour that is key, but their horses.

I think no one here is giving the compound bow the credit it deserves. This was a war winning weapon. The standard European bow had a range of 100 yards whereas the compound bow had a lethal range of 300 yards - this allowed the Mongolian army to stay well outside their enemy's range why raining down death. The only bow comparable to the compound bow was the English longbow which, because if its height, was unusable by cavalry and left no room for mobility.

They would be using guns and tanks and jets. It doesn't matter what they used back in their day. What matters is who would be able to best apply their own personal battle style in a modern setting.

Alexander. His victories were based solely on tactical brilliance.

You're forgetting that the question stated that they would be using modern technology. No horses, leather armor, javelins, shields, elephants, bows, whatever. They would be using guns and tanks and jets. It doesn't matter what they used back in their day. What matters is who would be able to best apply their own personal battle style in a modern setting.

Actually, I answer both points in each post. However modern combat is beyond my area of expertise, and indeed interest. Technology has ruined my interest in large scale warfare, as it seems to inevitably fall to mass air-strikes, carrier domination of the waves, and generally fought beyond the horizon.

Just Those 4? why?

Napoleon?
Wellington?
Rommell?
MacAuthur?
Patton?
Eisenhower?
Etc Etc

They're all pre-gunpowder age great military geniuses. Those particular 4 were picked partly as representative of a particular style. Also, I've long been interested in what the result might have been if a Mongol army had gone up against a "peak" Roman or Greek army.

MacArthur, Rommel, and Patton are highly over rated.

They're all pre-gunpowder age great military geniuses. Those particular 4 were picked partly as representative of a particular style. Also, I've long been interested in what the result might have been if a Mongol army had gone up against a "peak" Roman or Greek army.

MacArthur, Rommel, and Patton are highly over rated.

Against a peak Hellenic army? Such a result would be difficult to forcast. Mainly because the Greek phalanx was very good at defending against bombardment with arrows, the Sarissa and their shield were quite effective barriers to arrows. However, they would never be able to keep up with Genghis cavalry, and so would have to either hope Genghis makes a mistake by attacking them head on, or they would simply have to begin a concentrated attack into their territory to keep the Mongols on the move by laying waste to their farmland, and settlements in order to simply wear them out. However, they would be under pressure at all times by the Mongolians. Any slight slip, and they would be cracked and broken. it would require the utmost skill and precision.

The Romans would not fare so well, I believe, given that they lacked the sheer anti-cavalry power that a Hellenic hoplite phalanx can give. The Mongolians would not need to be so careful about them as they would the Greeks.

Julius Caesar would convince everyone that the fight was for the best and that it was worthwhile to die for the cause. Spirit and a populace that supports the war is best. Thus, winner.

Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, Chengis Khan, and Shaka Zulu have all been brought to 2005 with 100,000 of their best soldiers. They and their armies have been brought up to date on modern inventions and tactics and are now magically able to understand and operate modern military equipment. They have their choice of modern equipment. The battle field is Europe and no intervention from other modern forces is allowed.

Who wins?

Are all four armies fighting at once?

Against a peak Hellenic army? Such a result would be difficult to forcast. Mainly because the Greek phalanx was very good at defending against bombardment with arrows, the Sarissa and their shield were quite effective barriers to arrows. However, they would never be able to keep up with Genghis cavalry, and so would have to either hope Genghis makes a mistake by attacking them head on, or they would simply have to begin a concentrated attack into their territory to keep the Mongols on the move by laying waste to their farmland, and settlements in order to simply wear them out. However, they would be under pressure at all times by the Mongolians. Any slight slip, and they would be cracked and broken. it would require the utmost skill and precision.

The phalanx would be slaughtered. The greatest weakness of the phalanx (and ironically its greatest strength) is the fact that it's so rigid. There is no way that phalanx can shift fast enough to counteract a mongol flanking move - especially when the tumens could be split and one can flank left while the other flanks right. The defense against arrows is good only from the front. Side and especially rear attacks negate this. The Macedonian cavalry and light infantry/skirmishers that protected the flanks of the phalanxes would be cut down by the arrow storms leaving the phalanxes exposed.

As far as pressuring the Mongolians at all times, phalanxes, given there slow speed would be utterly incapable of this. There was a certain conflict where one army chased a rival army of horse archers for nearly 1000 miles only to be worn down and beaten 1000 miles from home. I see the same for any such attempts by the Greeks.

If anything I would say the Roman army would be slightly better equipped because of their shields and testudo formations - which would block the arrow storms - unfortunately mongol heavy cavalry would run them down, especially considering Mongols had lances as opposed to the much shorter jevalins of the Roman cavalry.

As far as medieval and antiquity combat, I think the Mongols are well above the rest. Only densly forested regions would hamper their onslaught.

Are all four armies fighting at once?

Exactly so.

Has it occured to anyone that operating modern day military machinery with a hangover is a BAD idea. With that said, the only army which didn't hold pre-battle drunkfests was Shaka's. It'd be turkey shoot for the Zulu's as the Romans and ESPECIALLY the Mongols and Alexander's Greeks crashed planes, flipped tanks and suffered massive friendly fire casualties from irate hungover barbarians. A horse or phalanx is one thing, but an F15 or an Abrams tank is another thing altogether.

Oh what a lovely war, God what a bloddy mess.

Has it occured to anyone that operating modern day military machinery with a hangover is a BAD idea. With that said, the only army which didn't hold pre-battle drunkfests was Shaka's. It'd be turkey shoot for the Zulu's as the Greeks, Romans and ESPECIALLY the Mongols and Alexander's Greeks crashed planes, flipped tanks and suffered massive friendly fire casualties from irate hungover barbarians. A horse or phalanx is one thing, but an F15 or an Amrams tanks is another thing altogether.

LOL Good point. :D

The phalanx would be slaughtered. The greatest weakness of the phalanx (and ironically its greatest strength) is the fact that it's so rigid. There is no way that phalanx can shift fast enough to counteract a mongol flanking move - especially when the tumens could be split and one can flank left while the other flanks right. The defense against arrows is good only from the front. Side and especially rear attacks negate this. The Macedonian cavalry and light infantry/skirmishers that protected the flanks of the phalanxes would be cut down by the arrow storms leaving the phalanxes exposed.

Not exactly. With sufficient troops, such as the Greeks could levy in times of crisis, they could easily have a hoplite wall protecting them at all sides, resulting in a full rectangle of protection.

As far as pressuring the Mongolians at all times, phalanxes, given there slow speed would be utterly incapable of this. There was a certain conflict where one army chased a rival army of horse archers for nearly 1000 miles only to be worn down and beaten 1000 miles from home. I see the same for any such attempts by the Greeks.

I'm not referring to a Hellenic invasion of the Steppes, but to counter any Mongolian invasion of Greece itself. Hoplites weren't that slow, and horses need rest as do people, and again, far more forage. This limits where the Mongolians can rest. Not to mention the walls of the Greek cities would have been a significant obstacle to Genghis... for more than the Great Wall of China. It relies on Genghis to be able to smash the opposition quickly. Against the Greeks, at their height, I don't think he'd be able to.

If anything I would say the Roman army would be slightly better equipped because of their shields and testudo formations - which would block the arrow storms - unfortunately mongol heavy cavalry would run them down, especially considering Mongols had lances as opposed to the much shorter jevalins of the Roman cavalry.

Actually the Testudo was used in later Roman times, late empire. Republic and early Empire shields could not be used for testudo as they were the wrong shape. ovoid as opposed to rectangular. Full of holes. Lances are also a mistake when it comes to cavalry warfare. Unless you catch the romans in a perfect charge, highly unlikely given that their light cavalry could run circles around heavy cavalry, then lances are useless, especially considering the length. Roman javelins or swords would be more suited to fight a cavalry engagement.

As far as medieval and antiquity combat, I think the Mongols are well above the rest. Only densly forested regions would hamper their onslaught.

That and large defensive emplacements, as well as a lack of food.

Having read this thread, everyone seems to be assuming that Alexander/Caesar/Chaka would be stupid enough to stand in the middle of a vast open plain and allow the Mongols to ride around, over and through them. Caesar, like Wellington, was rather adept at getting battles fought on the ground he wanted, or modifying the ground to his benefit (e.g. the double circumvallation at Alesia).

Yes, the Mongols would win on the Steppe, but throw in a river, or some trees, or a few lumpy bits and it would be a different story.

Also, if it was tanks and jets, I would pick Alex or Julius because they were established masters of combined arms warfare (and, as some of their troops were educated, they could read the helpful labels on the buttons... :D )

-SNIP-

If Genghis was not continually able to divide medieval armies up to conquer them, then he would not have had such a successful campaign. Genghis army does have significant advantages, especially in home territory - it is difficult to off-balance the Mongolian armies such as Hannibal was skilled at doing, and on the steppes, there is little potential for ambush, such as in Trebia and Trasimene. Genghis superior mobility is also a misnomer. it is far harder to feed a cavalry army. Perhaps in a single battle it is more maouevrable, but when they have ran out of arrows, multitudes of which would be buried in enemy shields, and the ground about them, after numerous cases of retiring from the field, they would be forced to move on or simply run out of forage. Horses need pasture to feed on, or you end up with a few thousand starving Mongols and their horses. As such, it is even less equipped to fight a winter war, or lay prolonged siege to a city. In a city siege, the cavalry would count for almost nought.


Secondly, if we consider modern technology, then Genghis' possible obsession with air superiority would be his undoing. You can't win a war with just air power, as it cannot take territory, and it cannot hold it. It's been shown... largely ineffective as a morale weapon as the London blitz testifies. Genghis may simply try to do too much with air power.
You talk abour little to forage on see that is the beauty of the steepes they were great for that.

The Phalanx is weak on the flanks and rough ground they shall be turned and isolated.
Mongols be the Victors!

Given that they are all using the same weapons, basically in light woodland and hinterland, i believe it would be Genghis, whose habit of splitting his troops would prove more effective in modern warfare, and would allow him to hold much more larger reserves after the other three had, as was largerly their tactic, tried to finish each other off in a large battle, Genghis would have more troops left intact for a mopup.

Ofcourse, this is all theory, Wars are generally a series of total fuckup which results in a victor, all boasts of great movements and tactics are in hindsight, remember

Not exactly. With sufficient troops, such as the Greeks could levy in times of crisis, they could easily have a hoplite wall protecting them at all sides, resulting in a full rectangle of protection.

Which is totally worthless. They become pinned in that formation and all the Mongols would have to do is wait them out much like a siege of a city or simply threaten another target that would force them to move. Another possibility, given the skill of Mongol arhcers, was that they can shoot over the phalanx directly in front of them and shoot the one defending the other side - in essence shooting them in the back.

I'm not referring to a Hellenic invasion of the Steppes, but to counter any Mongolian invasion of Greece itself. Hoplites weren't that slow, and horses need rest as do people, and again, far more forage. This limits where the Mongolians can rest. Not to mention the walls of the Greek cities would have been a significant obstacle to Genghis... for more than the Great Wall of China. It relies on Genghis to be able to smash the opposition quickly. Against the Greeks, at their height, I don't think he'd be able to.

Mongols were quite good at a war of attrition - look at the year long siege and dinal sacking of Kiev. Horses had plenty of room to forage and rest - admittedly though manueving would be much harder in mountainous Greece then it would be in the steppes.

Actually the Testudo was used in later Roman times, late empire. Republic and early Empire shields could not be used for testudo as they were the wrong shape. ovoid as opposed to rectangular. Full of holes. Lances are also a mistake when it comes to cavalry warfare. Unless you catch the romans in a perfect charge, highly unlikely given that their light cavalry could run circles around heavy cavalry, then lances are useless, especially considering the length. Roman javelins or swords would be more suited to fight a cavalry engagement.


Good point about the testudo, I forgot the round shields of the Histati, Principes, and Triarii. However, lances is not a bad idea - the Battle of Adrianople and the loss of around 40,000 Roman troops is a testament to this. Roman jevalins and swords could not get close enough to the Gothic cavalry and were subsequently routed and destroyed.

That and large defensive emplacements, as well as a lack of food.

Not entirely true. The Mongol invasion of Poland and Hungary shows that there was ample place for foraging and the invasion also showed that the Mongols could - in fact fight through winters and to an extent in forested regions.

Yes, the Mongols would win on the Steppe, but throw in a river, or some trees, or a few lumpy bits and it would be a different story.

Read about Subedei's invasion of Europe.

They're all pre-gunpowder age great military geniuses. Those particular 4 were picked partly as representative of a particular style. Also, I've long been interested in what the result might have been if a Mongol army had gone up against a "peak" Roman or Greek army.

MacArthur, Rommel, and Patton are highly over rated.

1. MacAuthur may have been overrated but why Rommell and Patton?

2. Zulu and Khan had similar styles no?

3. Why is Hannibal not in here

Ghenghis

A) Despite having been kicked out of his tribe early in his life he managed to force all of the Mongols to fight together under him.

B) He made it past the Great Wall and conquered China

C) He beat down Russia

B) He made it past the Great Wall and conquered China

C) He beat down Russia

Getting past the wall wasn't hard as the watchmen that were stationed there were easily bribed plus overall monitering had greatly declined.

Beating down Russia was cake. Any sort of formidable Russia wouldn't appear for another 300 years. Interestingly enough, by sacking Kiev he assured that Moscow would become the future capitol of the Russian Empire.

Genghis because his way of fighting was the closest to what people use today, with Blitzkrieg and so on.
He had proper, disciplined platoons, communicating with them through flag signs, he fought very mobile with feigned retreats and so on.
The others just couldn't get their fighting style aligned with modern technology as well.

This post sums up exactly the way I feel about this.


It would be much better to have them fight with tech from their own times. That way it would be a much better battle. However, Alexander or Ghengis would definitely have an edge. While Julius and Shaka were both good generals, Alexander and Ghengis were brilliant.

Is there daylight saving in the UK? I change the hour on the forum (-5 GMT) but here in my time zone it's 9:57 PM but the forum tells me 8:57 PM...

Getting past the wall wasn't hard as the watchmen that were stationed there were easily bribed plus overall monitering had greatly declined.

Beating down Russia was cake. Any sort of formidable Russia wouldn't appear for another 300 years. Interestingly enough, by sacking Kiev he assured that Moscow would become the future capitol of the Russian Empire.

He bribed them to let his army by?

He bribed them to let his army by?
China was pretty fucked in that time. The old dynasty had been rather disfunctional for that time.
Apart from the fact that they were fighting each other for a while.

Oh, and what exactly did Patton do well? He is like a stereotypical hero, yes, but militarily?
If he did have any skill, he couldn't have shown it because the USAF was winning the war for him. And the one time the USAF couldn't fight came precariously close to turning the war around in the West.

Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, Chengis Khan, and Shaka Zulu have all been brought to 2005 with 100,000 of their best soldiers. They and their armies have been brought up to date on modern inventions and tactics and are now magically able to understand and operate modern military equipment. They have their choice of modern equipment. The battle field is Europe and no intervention from other modern forces is allowed.

Who wins?
One of Shaka's main advantages was that he took the time to well equip his army. He was the first lower African leader to do so. If the tech level is the same for all sides then that advantage is gone.

He bribed them to let his army by?

Actually I should correct that to read that the wall wasn't effective in that the weak Chinese administration and infighting prevented adaquete care, maintenance, and gaurding of the wall. Pretty much what Leonstein said.

I should also say that Ghengis didn't bribe the officials (although he may have) but individual Mongol riaiders have been doing it for some time before the actual Mongol invasion.

1. MacAuthur may have been overrated but why Rommell and Patton?

Both were certainly good, but tend to have gotten publicity that overshadowed greater generals. Rommel especially. Von Manstein and Guderian were much better.

2. Zulu and Khan had similar styles no?

Yes and no. They both practiced manuver warfare. But greatly different styles resulting from differences of geography and technology.

3. Why is Hannibal not in here

I felt he was too close to Ceasar.

Most agree Hannibal is better than Caesar