oO GENGHIS KAHN vs. Alexander The Great Oo

[CaliAgents1688]

Alexander The Great's Empire

Genghis Kahn's Empire

However much I hate to admit it -- the Mongol Hoarde is unstoppable to any other army to have been fielded in the age of steel and arrow; the Mongols would never be encircled, the phalangites would be massacred because of their lack of large shield due to the weight of that and the longer sarrissa, and Alexander's bows were of poorer quality and doubtless far fewer in number.

No empire in history has risen up so fierce so quick as that of the Mongols. In less than 80 years, a band of warriors originally comprised of several men grew to an empire that encompassed half of the known world. Definitely the greatest and most dramatic conquest in history.

 

[MEXCOM]

1.Alexander NEVER lost a battle.
2.He was only thirty-three at the end of his life and in 13 years he had fought two super powers: The Greeks AND the Persians.
3.Alexander the Great defeated the superiorly armed Persian army. The Macedonian/Greek army had about 50,000 troops. The Persian army numbered anywhere from 250,000 to 1,000,000 troops. The Greeks lost 4,000 men. The Persians lost at least 200,000.
4.Genghis Kahn was respected by his troops for being a military genius and looked at almost as god-like. Alexander WAS a god. His troops respected him to the point that although most of them, including Alexander, never again saw Greece or Macedonia they mutinied at the thought of having to be sent away from battle.


Militiristically what did Khan have? An army based on cavalry. But that wouldn't work with an army that was about compromised of about 25% missle troops. The Monguls predominant tactic was to break the enemies formation and then attack with a fast and quick charge. Alexander's army was built on formation.

If the Monguls simply charged they'd be destroyed by the Phalanx formation. And even if they didn't their light cavalry would be sitting ducks for the Greecian slingers and light armored archers.

Given the fact that Alexanders army predated the Monguls by more than a thousand years the Greeks might have some trouble. But if they are both using contemporary weaponry I have no reason to believe that the Greeks would not take out the Monguls.

 

[CaliAgents1688]

The European armies tactics and composition were pretty much based on Alexander's tactics. Khan routed them, so he would undoubtedly route Alexander's army. Khan stragedy was quite simple. He would use his horseman to bait the opponent into chasing him via getting slaughtered by the archers. He decimated the european knights using this stragedy. The Mongols are vastly superior horsemen and archers.

Keep on dreaming with your delusions. The fact is that Alexander is a footnote compared to Ghengis. It's a joke even comparing the two. And greek armies were rolled over by steppe peoples every single time they fought.

Again your comments make me laugh. The mongols were military genius's total pragmatists. Do not compare the scythians or any army alexander ever ran up against to the mongols the comparison is laughable. Alexander was a military genius Genghis khan was even more so. They are by far the most successful army of all time no other army or nation can even come close to what the mongols acheived in the space of time they did it in. In most battles they were OUTNUMBERED and still massacred the enemy nine times out of ten.

 

[MEXCOM]

The European armies tactics and composition were pretty much based on Alexander's tactics. Khan routed them, so he would undoubtedly route Alexander's army. Khan stragedy was quite simple. He would use his horseman to bait the opponent into chasing him via getting slaughtered by the archers. He decimated the european knights using this stragedy. The Mongols are vastly superior horsemen and archers.

Read some history. Alexander was well aware of this CENTURIES before Genghis was even a sperm in the nutsack of his father. Alexander's strategy was made specifically to decimate cavalry and archers could do very little against it. You would have to flank the Phalanx in order to do much damage unless the Mongols were using one too.

Keep on dreaming with your delusions. The fact is that Alexander is a footnote compared to Ghengis. It's a joke even comparing the two. And greek armies were rolled over by steppe peoples every single time they fought.

You're kidding, right?

Firstly, this is not a fact. It is your opinion. What is a fact is that Alexander lived considerably less than Genghis and accomplished just as much, if not more.

Secondly, learn to spell Genghis. He must not be much more than the footnote if he's not even worth a quick spell check.

Thirdly, Alexander's army was not Greek. He wasn't Greek.

Again your comments make me laugh. The mongols were military genius's total pragmatists.

And Alexander wasn't?

The European armies tactics and composition were pretty much based on Alexander's tactics. Khan routed them, so he would undoubtedly route Alexander's army. Khan stragedy was quite simple. He would use his horseman to bait the opponent into chasing him via getting slaughtered by the archers. He decimated the european knights using this stragedy. The Mongols are vastly superior horsemen and archers.

Read some history. Alexander was well aware of this CENTURIES before Genghis was even a sperm in the nutsack of his father. Alexander's strategy was made specifically to decimate

Keep on dreaming with your delusions. The fact is that Alexander is a footnote compared to Ghengis. It's a joke even comparing the two. And greek armies were rolled over by steppe peoples every single time they fought.

You're kidding, right?

Firstly, this is not a fact. It is your opinion. What is a fact is that Alexander lived considerably less than Genghis and accomplished just as much, if not more.

Secondly, learn to spell Genghis. He must not be much more than the footnote if he's not even worth a quick spell check.

Thirdly, Alexander's army was not Greek. Alexander was not Greek.

Do not compare the scythians or any army alexander ever ran up against to the mongols the comparison is laughable.

The small country of Macedonia took over most, but one, of the Greecian city states and allied itself with Sparta, the remainding one. The Greeks were the ONLY power that the Persian Empire could not conquer. At the height of their power the Persian empire spread from Thrace and Macedon to India. This WAS the known world to the Greeks.

The Macedonians first took Greece and then took the whole Persian Empire with no more than 50,000 troops. After this they did what was NEVER done before in recorded history. They went out to conquer NEW and unheard of lands.

The Persian empire was known for it's military might. It had conquered the majority of the civilized world. Persia was the greatest city on earth at the time. The Persian Immortals numbered 1/5 of the Macedonians. These warriors were masters at archery, close quarters combat fighting, and sword fighting. If that wasn't enough the Persians also employed Greek mercenaries who numbered 3/4's of Alexander's troops. The rest of the Persian Army overwhelmed Alexander by at least 5 men to 1.

The Greek empire was also fierce and more than a match for Persia. They would constantly fight amongst themselves and STILL be able to fight back the Persian occupations.

The Indians had Elephants which the Greeks had never seen before. The Indian warriors had the advantage in elephants and in terrain and they were still massacred. The total body cound was around Indians: 30000-20000 and Macedonians: 200-50.

The Indian and the Persians and The Greeks were far more intimidating than just the Monguls. Like I said before, the monguls ONLY have the advantage in weaponry. If they were both contemporaries Genghis would not stand a chance.

 

[TROLL]

lol... u can tell when this fool caliagents gets flustered because he'll begin making personal attacks that arent relevent to the topic at hand.. keep up the good work mexicancommando.. u got me learning new shit every other time u post..

 

[CaliAgents1688]

TROLL, keep riding your boy's nutsack! He's enjoying every minute of it

Are you blind? Do you not see the size of Genghis Kahn's empire? It was 4-5 times that of Alexander's puny empire. The Mongols destroyed the Persian armies in UNDER 2 years time. The Indians were just minute roadblocks in the road. You seem to be spouting a bunch of bull and by the way, since when are all book sources credible? If you've actually learned anything most textbooks are extremely biased.

They don't need it. Heavy Infantry in no situation with a good general would ever come in to contact with the Mongols -- Heavy infantry are the weakest possible type of soldier to deploy against mongol troops.

We're talking 300,000 or so Mongol troops against a maximum of 50,000 of Alexander's. Alexander faced few competent armies with competent leaders, and mostly those were hellenes fighting as mercenaries with different fighting styles.

The Hoarde would quickly dispatch any archers, slingers and throwers of javelins from a greater range, and with amazing accuracy given they're firing from horseback. Quickly, they would then begin to harass and draw off the cavalry -- light cavalry would be eliminated extremely quickly by the arrows of the hoarde.

Alexander would, probably, be left with disciplined infantry, which could just be picked off with arrows -- they had no large bronze shields because of the extra weight of their longer pikes.

Alexander's chances of victory could only come from a massive terrain advantage, such as a battle in the woods -- this was tried before on them, and the Mongols knew better and moved on.

Genghis Khan's army was much more superior that Alexander's, bottom line. The mongols conquered almost all of Asia. They put fear into so many people's mind that the Ming Dynasty, for example, had to built one of the great structures ever...the Great Wall of China in order to fight off the Mongols. When a wall that streches for more than 6,700 kilometers through Eastern China is built, it should be enough to tell you how much they feared Genghis Kahn.

How on earth could the Mongols ever be engaged by any arm of the Greek armies, apart from the archers, which would be so outnumbered and beaten by the mongols? Especially in any large numbers? I don't understand.

Also forgetting Mongols greatest advantage, mobility. They were one of the most mobile armies, they could ride for almost ten days without stopping to light a fire, or to cook food. They could cover 70 miles in a day as they had no supply lines. Mongols were often out numbered numerically by armies, often 3 to 1, and they often routed those same enemies. Also, how much discipline did Alexander's troops have? Because Genghis Khan had probably the best discipline of about any time in his troops. Also, Genghis Khan would probably try and ambush or use trickery against Alexander, unless he was sure of victory. Often Genghis Khan would fight against infantry, admittly not with pikes, and would slaughter them.

Mongolian compound bow was a hideously powerful ranged weapon, and the Mongols could make rapid, aimed shots with them at full gallop. Things would seem to depend largely on whether or not Ghenghis would amend his tactics - a charge into the center of the phalanxes would accomplish precisely nothing. However, if the Mongols did use their standard attack-and-fade formula and succeeded in drawing out the phalanxes, it'd be a simple matter to destroy them in detail - once phalangites are out of formation, they're basically useless. It would be an extreme test of his ability to control his troops, but Ghenghis could very well win the day.


The Mongol forces defeated armies 10 times their size as well. In their campaign against the Kwarazmiam Empire and dropped the walls of the "imprenatratable" Samarkand in a mear ten days while being out numbered by nearly 20 to 1 by the defenders inside.

The Mongols faced all comers and faught more different battle tactics then any other force in military history and defeated them all, from the Heavly Armored Polish Knights to the Russian Horsemen to the Persian Spear collumns, the Chinese, etc.

My friend. They faced everything Alexander had and destroyed them and did it in so many different ways.
The average Mongol Archer could cut down a man at over 350 yards (or 320 meters away) away from horseback at full gallop. Great Mongol Archers were reported capable of killing men at over 400 yards.


Oh and just as a sidenote, the Mongols were the only force to ever succesfully invade and conquer Russia during the Winter and this was lead by Subedei.

 

[MEXCOM]

CaliAgents is a bitch

TROLL, keep riding your boy's nutsack! He's enjoying every minute of it

No, but what I am about to enjoy is exposing you for the faggot you are.

The rest of your post is shit. I won't even bother to respond to it...why? Because you're points are to well made that I couldn't possibly keep up with them? Not quite, it's more because you're taking other people's ideas and passing them off as your own. You are a plagirist and a faggot. Time to expose you.

This is what you posted.

They don't need it. Heavy Infantry in no situation with a good general would ever come in to contact with the Mongols -- Heavy infantry are the weakest possible type of soldier to deploy against mongol troops.

We're talking 300,000 or so Mongol troops against a maximum of 50,000 of Alexander's. Alexander faced few competent armies with competent leaders, and mostly those were hellenes fighting as mercenaries with different fighting styles.

The Hoarde would quickly dispatch any archers, slingers and throwers of javelins from a greater range, and with amazing accuracy given they're firing from horseback. Quickly, they would then begin to harass and draw off the cavalry -- light cavalry would be eliminated extremely quickly by the arrows of the hoarde.

Alexander would, probably, be left with disciplined infantry, which could just be picked off with arrows -- they had no large bronze shields because of the extra weight of their longer pikes.

Alexander's chances of victory could only come from a massive terrain advantage, such as a battle in the woods -- this was tried before on them, and the Mongols knew better and moved on.

How on earth could the Mongols ever be engaged by any arm of the Greek armies, apart from the archers, which would be so outnumbered and beaten by the mongols? Especially in any large numbers? I don't understand.

Also forgetting Mongols greatest advantage, mobility. They were one of the most mobile armies, they could ride for almost ten days without stopping to light a fire, or to cook food. They could cover 70 miles in a day as they had no supply lines. Mongols were often out numbered numerically by armies, often 3 to 1, and they often routed those same enemies. Also, how much discipline did Alexander's troops have? Because Genghis Khan had probably the best discipline of about any time in his troops. Also, Genghis Khan would probably try and ambush or use trickery against Alexander, unless he was sure of victory. Often Genghis Khan would fight against infantry, admittly not with pikes, and would slaughter them.

Mongolian compound bow was a hideously powerful ranged weapon, and the Mongols could make rapid, aimed shots with them at full gallop. Things would seem to depend largely on whether or not Ghenghis would amend his tactics - a charge into the center of the phalanxes would accomplish precisely nothing. However, if the Mongols did use their standard attack-and-fade formula and succeeded in drawing out the phalanxes, it'd be a simple matter to destroy them in detail - once phalangites are out of formation, they're basically useless. It would be an extreme test of his ability to control his troops, but Ghenghis could very well win the day.


The Mongol forces defeated armies 10 times their size as well. In their campaign against the Kwarazmiam Empire and dropped the walls of the "imprenatratable" Samarkand in a mear ten days while being out numbered by nearly 20 to 1 by the defenders inside.

The Mongols faced all comers and faught more different battle tactics then any other force in military history and defeated them all, from the Heavly Armored Polish Knights to the Russian Horsemen to the Persian Spear collumns, the Chinese, etc.

My friend. They faced everything Alexander had and destroyed them and did it in so many different ways.
The average Mongol Archer could cut down a man at over 350 yards (or 320 meters away) away from horseback at full gallop. Great Mongol Archers were reported capable of killing men at over 400 yards.


Oh and just as a sidenote, the Mongols were the only force to ever succesfully invade and conquer Russia during the Winter and this was lead by Subedei.

Once you knew that I knew more than you did about the topic at hand you went off did a little google search and took information from another message board. Not only did you take the information from the message board you actually copied it. WORD FOR WORD.

They don't need it. Heavy Infantry in no situation with a good general would ever come in to contact with the Mongols -- Heavy infantry are the weakest possible type of soldier to deploy against mongol troops.

We're talking 300,000 or so Mongol troops against a maximum of 50,000 of Alexander's. Alexander faced few competent armies with competent leaders, and mostly those were hellenes fighting as mercenaries with different fighting styles.

The Hoarde would quickly dispatch any archers, slingers and throwers of javelins from a greater range, and with amazing accuracy given they're firing from horseback. Quickly, they would then begin to harass and draw off the cavalry -- light cavalry would be eliminated extremely quickly by the arrows of the hoarde.

Alexander would, probably, be left with disciplined infantry, which could just be picked off with arrows -- they had no large bronze shields because of the extra weight of their longer pikes.

Alexander's chances of victory could only come from a massive terrain advantage, such as a battle in the woods -- this was tried before on them, and the Mongols knew better and moved on.

How on earth could the Mongols ever be engaged by any arm of the Greek armies, apart from the archers, which would be so outnumbered and beaten by the mongols? Especially in any large numbers? I don't understand.

Also forgetting Mongols greatest advantage, mobility. They were one of the most mobile armies, they could ride for almost ten days without stopping to light a fire, or to cook food. They could cover 70 miles in a day as they had no supply lines. Mongols were often out numbered numerically by armies, often 3 to 1, and they often routed those same enemies. Also, how much discipline did Alexander's troops have? Because Genghis Khan had probably the best discipline of about any time in his troops. Also, Genghis Khan would probably try and ambush or use trickery against Alexander, unless he was sure of victory. Often Genghis Khan would fight against infantry, admittly not with pikes, and would slaughter them.

Mongolian compound bow was a hideously powerful ranged weapon, and the Mongols could make rapid, aimed shots with them at full gallop. Things would seem to depend largely on whether or not Ghenghis would amend his tactics - a charge into the center of the phalanxes would accomplish precisely nothing. However, if the Mongols did use their standard attack-and-fade formula and succeeded in drawing out the phalanxes, it'd be a simple matter to destroy them in detail - once phalangites are out of formation, they're basically useless. It would be an extreme test of his ability to control his troops, but Ghenghis could very well win the day.


The Mongol forces defeated armies 10 times their size as well. In their campaign against the Kwarazmiam Empire and dropped the walls of the "imprenatratable" Samarkand in a mear ten days while being out numbered by nearly 20 to 1 by the defenders inside.

The Mongols faced all comers and faught more different battle tactics then any other force in military history and defeated them all, from the Heavly Armored Polish Knights to the Russian Horsemen to the Persian Spear collumns, the Chinese, etc.

My friend. They faced everything Alexander had and destroyed them and did it in so many different ways.
The average Mongol Archer could cut down a man at over 350 yards (or 320 meters away) away from horseback at full gallop. Great Mongol Archers were reported capable of killing men at over 400 yards.


Oh and just as a sidenote, the Mongols were the only force to ever succesfully invade and conquer Russia during the Winter and this was lead by Subedei.

Yup, that's right folks this faggot not only took another person's arguement, he actually tried to pass it off as his own. Don't believe the COMMANDO? Well then check out the same site he got all his info from:

http://www.lifeisannoying.com/forum/index.php?board=20;action=display;threadid=3459

Now, normally I don't do this, but this guy is a FAGGOT. 2-0-Sixx, is there any way you can ban this faggot? Being a whore is one thing. But to insult ME and then use some one else's arguement word, for fucking word violates one, if not more, of the rules of the GOM board.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

As HERESY would say,

X 1,998,000,006,006!!!

I'll give CaliAgents1688 the opportunity to reply and hopefully apologize for his insults as well as blatant plagiarism.

I also officially give my “WARNING” to CaliAgents1688.

 

[CaliAgents1688]

I'm sorry for the plagiarism but I just didn't feel like typing ALL that relevant information up

Bottom line is that this is ALL SPECULATION and opinion based on historical connotations, so we can do this all day back and forth and go nowhere since this isn't something as easy as comparing apples to apples.

You can keep this thread alive or close it, it's all good!

 

[EDJ]

^LOL.

 

[Hutch]

Do you think that's why he started this argument? Because he had already found a strong argument in favour of the Mongols on anther board? Tut tut tut Caliagents!

You know that Qin Shihuang-Ti's army of the warring states period (circa ~225 BC) would have crushed both the mongols and Alexander the Great. No other army in the world at that stage could match the might of the Qin. They not only had great armies with advanced weapons, but they were also great military tacticians. And it was he who started the building of the great wall over 1000 years before the mongols were a true threat in order to prevent incursions from barbarians of the North.

The one main advantage of the Monguls is that they weren't dictators - when China was under their rule (900-1200AD?), they adopted many of the Chinese customs, dressed in their clothes, embraced their religions and essentially done very little to make the Chinese people hate them. This would prevent the populus under their rule from rebelling, using less military might than might otherwise be required.

 

[smuggla]

hahaha commando beat me to it. i did some googling myself today and found that message board too. alexander is my opinion but im too tired to really support it at the moment, if this thread stays alive id love to debate it later.