re: Alexander the great vs Genghis Khan

In this presumed battle Alexander would have to take a defensive stance. There's no sense in trying an attack on the Horde in the open field. He'd have to keep his heavy horses back to protect the flanks. He might have a shot if he got a good mass of foot archers with contemporary bows to the Mongols, set them behind the spear wall, as the Bowman on foot ought to be able to out range the Mongols on horseback.

Ideally get on a hill or high ground in a tight mountain valley or something.

From Khan to Timur, there wasn't much to stop the horse archer hordes but forests until the musket became reliable enough to arm the peasants in mass. There's a reason the rise of Russia as a large contental power happens at the same time guns became the preferred tool of war.

quote:

---

all of this is correct. In my op I said the armys are equal size for this very purpose.

---

Oops, I missed that part.

Well from what I've read, a lot of Genghis Khan's tactics were similar to the Scythians (feigned retreat and whatnot) and Alexander crushed them. A lot of what Genghis had going for him was the size of his army and that a lot of his enemies didn't take them seriously since they were seen as just a rabble of "barbarians". If Alexander took the threat seriously, I think he wins.

quote:

---

There are some who argue that Subutai is the greatest military mind the world has ever seen.

---

I've listened to every Hardcore History episode and this is my conclusion as well.

N. Bedford Forrest takes em both with half the men.

Two different periods, tactics and armies changed. Might as well ask Khan vs Napleon or Alex vs Patton.

Jelme

Jebe was the Taichud who supposedly wounded Ghengis as an enemy commander who was then taken under Ghengis’ wing.

A core group of eight or ten men who were some of the biggest badasses in world history. Comparable to the Pompei/Caesar/Crassus/Cicero/Cato the Younger generation in Rome in comparable global impact.

the Assyrians had softened things up for Alexander.

I'd take the great Khan's Mongols over just about any army before the implementation of gun powder.The Greeks have historically been ill-suited when fighting tribes of Horse Archers; and Genghis combined those "Parthian shot" tactics with perhaps the greatest military mind of all-time.

Alexander get a lot of good historical press, and rightfully so, the dude was awesome (in the original sense of the word); however it should be noted that he was gifted perhaps the greatest army ever assembled. He wasn't exactly a self-made conqueror.

I googled "Alexander the Great horse archer" and came up with this:

The Battle of Jaxartes

"This was the end for the Scythian army - about 1200 Scythians were surrounded and killed, including their commander Satraces. Over 150 prisoners were taken and 1800 horses were captured. As far as the Macedonians and Greeks knew, no commander had ever been able to pin down and destroy a nomad army besides Alexander's father, Philip II. Philip had defeated the Scythian king Atheas in 340 BC.

"This was a boost for morale, and a psychological blow for the nomads north of the Jaxartes. Alexander’s main aim, however, had never been to subdue the nomads; he wanted to go to the south, where a far more serious crisis demanded his attention. He could do so now without loss of face; and in order to make the outcome acceptable to the Saccae, he released the prisoners of war without ransom. This policy was successful: the northern frontier of Alexander’s empire was never seriously threatened again."

I think this matchup would be closer than most are saying.

quote:

---

are you trying to say Alexander couldn't beat Caesar? EL O frickING EL

---

The maniple system was just a far superior innovation in close quarter combat to the phalanx, so yes, Caesar would have destroyed Alexander.