- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Alexander the Great or ghengis khan
Posted on 4/26/19 at 11:08 am to beerJeep
Posted on 4/26/19 at 11:08 am to beerJeep
I really don’t understand why you give so little credit to the Macedonian forces. They had a GREAT cavalry in their own right who was LED into battle BY ALEXANDER HIMSELF. He was THE cavalry commander 
This post was edited on 4/26/19 at 11:09 am
1
Posted on 4/26/19 at 11:13 am to beerJeep
quote:
I’m just obviously talking to someone who has very little blah blah blah blah
quote:Thank you, professor.
they’d still get their shite pushed.
Posted on 4/26/19 at 11:14 am to Hawgnsincebirth55
quote:
They had a GREAT cavalry in their own right who was LED into battle BY ALEXANDER HIMSELF. He was THE cavalry commander
The Georgians had great Calvary as well. They still absolutely destroyed them.
Let’s do a run down. Alexander used HEAVY Calvary. They were heavily armored, as were the riders. They were shock troops used to charge into an infantry line and break it.
They used ONE horse.
The mongols used LIGHT horse. They weren’t heavily armored, and they used the Parthian shot and feigned retreats. They would simply draw out the heavy Calvary, turn around in their saddles, and shoot them over and over as they feigned a retreat back to the main line.
Once they reached the main line, the fleeing mongols went to the rear, got a new horse, and got back into the swarming circle that now has the tired and alone pursuing heavy Calvary completely encircled and slaughter them to the last man.
Once the Calvary is taken care of, they then fall upon the foot and do the exact same thing.
Posted on 4/26/19 at 11:16 am to blueboy
quote:
Thank you, professor
Any time. Now, if you’d like, I just laid out WHY ghengis and his tactics would decimate Alexander (the same way he destroyed the Georgians), Care to explain how I’m wrong?
Please, do use historical context and examples when giving your reasonings.
Posted on 4/26/19 at 11:19 am to beerJeep
What I am saying is Alexander the Great conquered armies of many different makeups including the predecessor to ghengis himself such as the Scythians. He faced light cavalry before and if you gave him 6 months to learn and hear news of how the mongols fought he would develop tactics to defeat them. You are talking about the man who was personally tutored from childhood up by Aristotle. He may be the most brilliant (intelligence wise) military commander of all time
Posted on 4/26/19 at 11:22 am to Hawgnsincebirth55
quote:
He faced light cavalry before and if you gave him 6 months to learn and hear news of how the mongols fought he would develop tactics to defeat them. You are talking about the man who was personally tutored from childhood up by Aristotle. He may be the most brilliant (intelligence wise) military commander of all time
I simply flat out disagree.
We will never know what would happen. I just don’t see it. I laid out how the fight would happen from ghengis’ perspective. How would Alexander beat ghengis? Lay it out for me.
Posted on 4/26/19 at 11:38 am to beerJeep
How about google battle of jaxartes
Better yet I’ll do it for you per wiki:
ETA: oh and in case you were wondering some estimates have Alexander being outnumbered by as many as 15,000 men
Better yet I’ll do it for you per wiki:
quote:
The Scythians were forced from the banks by the powerful catapults and siege bows. For the Macedonians, it was now easy to cross the Jaxartes. In all likelihood the Scythians would normally have withdrawn at this point. However Alexander wanted to neutralise the threat to his borders from the nomad armies once and for all and was not about to let the enemy get away so easily. Therefore, as a second part of his strategy he ordered a battalion of mounted spear-men to advance and provoke an attack from the horse-lords. The nomads did not recognize this sacrifice for what it was. In their society, in which blood feuds were common, no commander would have sacrificed troops to obtain a better position for the main force. The families of those who had been killed would immediately start a vendetta. Alexander, on the other hand, could send his mounted spear-men on this dangerous mission because his men were well trained and understood that they were not really left alone. Alexander’s vanguard was immediately surrounded and attacked by the Scythian mounted archers. Once they were engaged, their position was fixed and they were vulnerable to an approach by the Macedonian infantry and Alexander’s cohorts of Cretan archers. The nomads found themselves caught between the Macedonian mounted spear-men and the rest of Alexander’s army. The Scythians tried to escape to the wings of the Macedonian lines, but there they were met by Alexander’s infantry.
ETA: oh and in case you were wondering some estimates have Alexander being outnumbered by as many as 15,000 men
This post was edited on 4/26/19 at 11:41 am
Posted on 4/26/19 at 11:40 am to Hawgnsincebirth55
“If you let Alexander the Great learn how to be Ghengis Khan hed be better than Ghengis Khan”
Posted on 4/26/19 at 11:44 am to beerJeep
The big difference here is the stirrup. Ghengis's armies were early adopters of the stirrup, which wasn't invented until the Middle Ages. So, Alexander's armies had no stirrups and no experience fighting against stirrup cavalry.
What the stirrup does for cavalry is make horsemen far more stable on their saddles, giving archers better mobility, accuracy, and range, and offering heavy cavalry far more power.
How many times did classic Greek Shield Wall phalanxes crush light cavalry before the stirrup?
How many times did classic phalanxes defeat light cavalry AFTER the stirrup.
Therein lies your answer.
What the stirrup does for cavalry is make horsemen far more stable on their saddles, giving archers better mobility, accuracy, and range, and offering heavy cavalry far more power.
How many times did classic Greek Shield Wall phalanxes crush light cavalry before the stirrup?
How many times did classic phalanxes defeat light cavalry AFTER the stirrup.
Therein lies your answer.
This post was edited on 4/26/19 at 11:46 am
Posted on 4/26/19 at 11:45 am to kingbob
He would not use the phalanx is my point. He would adapt to different strategies as he was known to do once he realized the enhanced mobility and still take the day
Posted on 4/26/19 at 11:49 am to Hawgnsincebirth55
quote:
Once they were engaged, their position was fixed
The mongols never stayed in a fixed position.
Also, what a minor minor minor minor skirmish.
quote:
About 1200 Scythians were surrounded and killed
Now. Let’s look at the Battle of Khunan.
quote:
This time King George IV and atabeg Ivane Mkhargrdzeli was waiting with about 70,000 men: thinking that the Mongols would stay in Arran until the Spring, the Georgians began gathering an army, asking for help from the rulers of Azerbaijan and Akhlat, but Jebe and Subutai reinforced by Turkish and Kurdish army, did start their expedition early. Two armies met on the plain of Khunan in September. With 5,000 men, Jebe set up an ambush while Subutai went forward with the rest of the army. The Mongol tactic was to attack with its main body and then feign a retreat, after which a second Mongol army descended to encircle and destroy the enemy. Unprepared for this tactic, the Georgians chased them up to the river Kotman until Jebe’s sudden advance from the ambush ended the battle. The king and Ivane fled, leaving Prince Vahram Gageli to fight on the right flank.[8]
Like I said. There is no equal to the feigned retreat and Parthian shot.
Posted on 4/26/19 at 11:51 am to beerJeep
quote:
There is no equal to the feigned retreat and Parthian shot.
If you've seen "The Patriot", this is the same strategy Mel Gibson uses to win the battle towards the end of the movie.
Posted on 4/26/19 at 11:58 am to beerJeep
Do you think the Scythian planned on getting in a fixed position, the whole point is Alexander manipulates them I to a fixed position the number of troops doesn’t matter his tactics is the key. If the armies size is close I believe Alexander gets the khans army in a position he wants where he can’t use his hit and run tactics and then closes in and finishes him. Did you not understand what that article says? It was basically like a game of chess played in real life. The reason the casualties are so low is because they recognized they were defeated. He lost 120 men. The battle started with him having 6,000 and the scythians 15-20,000. Do you understand the kind of tactician you are dealing with? Dan Carlin predicted Alexander’s army would stand a fair shot of defeating Charlemagne who fought in the 1100s and turned back the great Muslim horde. Alexander fought in the 300s bce. That means one of the most respected historians of our day believes Alexander was a good enough general barring overwhelming numbers he could competently fight an army 1500 years in the future without any update in arms, tactics or strategy. Now imagine you give that man 6 months to get caught up on the times. Let’s just say in this hypothetical another great nation brings him in to run their army before a mongol imvasion. Do you not see how this would be difficult and different than any army ghengis ever faced?
the number of troops doesn’t matter his tactics is the key. If the armies size is close I believe Alexander gets the khans army in a position he wants where he can’t use his hit and run tactics and then closes in and finishes him. Did you not understand what that article says? It was basically like a game of chess played in real life. The reason the casualties are so low is because they recognized they were defeated. He lost 120 men. The battle started with him having 6,000 and the scythians 15-20,000. Do you understand the kind of tactician you are dealing with? Dan Carlin predicted Alexander’s army would stand a fair shot of defeating Charlemagne who fought in the 1100s and turned back the great Muslim horde. Alexander fought in the 300s bce. That means one of the most respected historians of our day believes Alexander was a good enough general barring overwhelming numbers he could competently fight an army 1500 years in the future without any update in arms, tactics or strategy. Now imagine you give that man 6 months to get caught up on the times. Let’s just say in this hypothetical another great nation brings him in to run their army before a mongol imvasion. Do you not see how this would be difficult and different than any army ghengis ever faced?Posted on 4/26/19 at 12:00 pm to beerJeep
We know you fear the yellow man. you don't have to be such a bitch about it.
I choose you. You're my little google monkey today. Go fetch.
quote:Non you didn't. You just spat out a bunch of terms you just learned and sort of organized it into a scenario that requires Alexander to walk into everything like a stage prop.
I just laid out WHY
quote:You first. It's not like we haven't had this stupid thread 10 times since I joined this site. Wanna do Bruce Lee vs. Mike Tyson next?
Please, do use historical
I choose you. You're my little google monkey today. Go fetch.
Posted on 4/26/19 at 12:02 pm to blueboy
I already sighted a battle in which Alexander plays the horse nomads like a fiddle negating their mobility advantage blocking their escape route and surrounding them after they thought they had done the surrounding. It was a masterful battlefield strategy
Posted on 4/26/19 at 12:02 pm to blueboy
quote:
We know you fear the yellow man. you don't have to be such a bitch about it.
Wtf are you talking about, loser?
quote:
Non you didn't. You just spat out a bunch of terms you just learned and sort of organized it into a scenario that requires Alexander to walk into everything like a stage prop.
Whatever you say, bud
quote:
You first. It's not like we haven't had this stupid thread 10 times since I joined this site. Wanna do Bruce Lee vs. Mike Tyson next?
Trollolololol do you have anything of substance to bring, or are you just a little monkey throwing his shite everywhere?
quote:
choose you. You're my little google monkey today. Go fetch.
Ah. Makes sense. Suck start a shotgun, loser.
Posted on 4/26/19 at 12:06 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
quote:
Do you think the Scythian planned on getting in a fixed position, the whole point is Alexander manipulates them I to a fixed position
yes. That’s what it was. quote:
Did you not understand what that article says?
Perfectly. Did you?
quote:
The battle started with him having 6,000 and the scythians 15-20,000
20k v 70k.
quote:
Do you understand the kind of tactician you are dealing with?
Sure do. You obviously don’t understand the tactics the mongols used and the fact that the only way to counter them is to use the same tactics.
Posted on 4/26/19 at 12:07 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
quote:
the horse nomads like a fiddle negating their mobility advantage blocking their escape route and surrounding them after they thought they had done the surrounding. It was a masterful battlefield strategy
Except the whole, Feigned retreat and ambush thing.
Posted on 4/26/19 at 12:11 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
quote:
Dan Carlin predicted Alexander’s army would stand a fair shot of defeating Charlemagne who fought in the 1100s and turned back the great Muslim horde. Alexander fought in the 300s bce. That means one of the most respected historians of our day believes Alexander was a good enough general barring overwhelming numbers he could competently fight an army 1500 years in the future without any update in arms, tactics or strategy
Charlemagne lived during the 700-800s, and Dan Carlin is a pop historian. He himself doesn't do history, only recites it from other sources. He isn't a respected academic historian, nor has he actually done any original historical work of his own.
Posted on 4/26/19 at 12:14 pm to beerJeep
I understand the feigned retreat. I understand the Parthian shot. I understand how the mongols fought. I understand that if they met Alexander on the field of battle they could win. But you are comparing Alexander to some run of the mill king from Georgia is insulting to one of the top 5 military leaders of all time and that is not debatable. He pushed the horse nomads (which is what the mongols were) against a river using artillery. He then sent in mounted heavy cavalry knowing they would get surrounded, much in the same way the mongols did,(ya know as you’ve stated time and again run in shoot run back for fresh horse) but as they were galloping in circles around this force he marched in his other units to one side to attack them and had his infantry come in from a third to block any path out. He laid a trap that I believe would be the same way he would beat ghengis negating his hit and run (feigned retreat) tactics, and once they could get to the mongols cut them down until they sued for peace. It may not be the exact trap but something similar. Alexander never lost a battle. He fought across 3 different continents. He fought in India vs war elephants, Central Asia against the horse lords, Greece against the phalanx, Persia against chariots, archers and light infantry. He was adaptable in all conditions and terrains. He would never be duped by ghengis khan
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News